This clip is from a 50-minute podcast that's now available to all Patreon and TH-cam members: www.patreon.com/rationalityrules Please be sure to check out Dr. Ehrman's course on why he is not a Christian: tinyurl.com/yaxumefy While the whole podcast is currently available only to supporters of the channel, know that it'll be available for everyone to enjoy soon.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Bart debated Dinesh who went on to Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1983. Why has Bart refused to debate Richard Carrier on a historical jesus?
Stephen Fry dismantled any (past or future) apologist’s defense of suffering with four words: “ Bone cancer in children.” That’s all I need to be convinced there’s no LOVING god.
@@wet-read really? care to enlighten us? If your argument is that we can't know what is good or bad (because god is so far above us that we can't know what his ultimate aim is) then maybe you could answer this: How do we know if god is good or bad? We can't go on what he says, as he might be an evil god who is lying and we can't know based on his actions as we don't know if they are good or bad. So how do we know?
@@bjhcvuaerpigfy Relax, I was just messing around 😃 P.S. The philosopher Sharon Street wrote an essay tearing apart that stuff. It is called "If Everything Happens For a Reason, Then We Don't Know What Reasons Are". I highly recommend it!
My friend has bone cancer he is a Sikh I tell him he's brought it on himself his name is Singh like the last guru. Ganesh could survive bone cancer he's many alms 😆 seriously though arms usually come as pair
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei Barts response at 6:35 reminded me of this quote from Galileo.
I love how Dr Ehrman is so happy doing interviews with the TH-cam religion, history and philosophy crowd. I think a lot of the older academic types still see TH-cam as non serious and insignificant, but I think he gets that it's becoming a decentralized replacement for a lot of journalism and popular education platforms. Seems like a real great guy both personally and in his field from all his interviews and debates I've seen.
Dr Ehrman is quite entertaining and knowledgeable. It took me a while to to get used to his mannerisms. Now that I have I love to hear him discuss all aspects of the Bible and judeo Christian beliefs. So glad you have him on your channel.
Dr. Ehrman was instrumental in my being comfortable with my atheism. I was an atheist before reading any of his books or watching any of his discussions, but his logic has reinforced my comfort in what I believe and why. Thanks for providing this clip. I hope it helps others discover their beliefs as well.
I discovered Bart Ehrman a little over a month ago and read "Misquoting Jesus." It's really fascinating and I don't understand how I've never heard of it. Excellent conversation
The free will argument has always been funny to me because I immediately think of what heaven would have to be like. Basically one of three conclusions would have to be reached and each have their own baggage for religious people. 1. Heaven is a place without evil because it lacks free will. This would make a lot of what religious people say about god wanting us to have choices and not be robots be kind of pointless. 2. Heaven is a place with free will and also must have evil the same way the mortal world does. This would make heaven basically just an immortal version of our world which isn’t very heavenly at all. 3. Heaven has free will but exists without evil. This is the most challenging of all because if god could make a world where everyone freely chooses to accept and love him then why make a version where people wouldn’t freely accept god?
3 is what is true (but not exactly as you phrased it). Heaven is the reward of choosing God, not a distinct new "life." Those in Heaven have cemented their wills to be with God. Those in hell have refused God and abandoned Him.
We'd say that someone in Heaven has accepted God as the ultimate good and once purified of sin, would find sin miserable and absurd (it would be like putting your hand on a stove-- you know it will hurt your).
The idea of people having free will under this particular god (Judeo-Christian) is very hard to reconcile with his characteristic of being omniscient, because if he already knows everything that will happen then everyone else only has an illusion of a choice.
@@archie8767 doesn’t god know everything that will happen from beginning to end the moment he made everything? If that’s the case then why did he create souls that he knew were going to choose to deny him and be sent to hell? This is the problem with version 3 of heaven. If god doesn’t want people to go to hell then why did he create them knowing what would happen to them especially if he could’ve created them to freely accept them? Obviously if heaven has free will but no evil then free will can’t be the reason for evil. That reason would have to be god since he created people with full knowledge they would commit evil acts while also having the power to create them to have free will and never choose to commit evil.
@@grantparker6092 All of our actions are simultaneous to God. He is looking at our temporal universe as if we were overlooking a table. All things happen at once, and he constantly permits them to happen. Heaven is the end of a choice. If one chooses to love God, his nature becomes a habit. In habitually loving God, we know Him more. In knowing Him more, we see the depth of goodness. Knowing the depth of goodness, our wills have better grip of what we actually desire. Because we have fully embraced God, we no longer sin. The above requires that we have chosen God. The alternative is to refuse Him in favor of reprobation. One must choose to sin.
About the free will defense, if I choose to do something evil, like rape or murder, then free will would still be denied to someone, it's just that instead of god denying it to me, I deny it to another human. So it calls into question if that kind of free will should be preserved.
You aren't denying their free will, you are denying them freedom of will to not be violated in such a way, but the free will proponent would still believe they have free will. To remove free will would be to determine their actions, not their conditions. Of course, libertarian free will/choice making is fundamentally incoherent.
The idea of god allowing free will is in respect to god not interefering in human free will, of course this excuse fails when you put it along the "omnibenevolent" characteristic of their god, but that is a different question.
@@rodomolina7995 Free will is the idea of choice making. That I can make a choice that is _not_ the result of external factors. This doesn't make much sense. Freedom of will is the condition under which I am operating _(free will or not)._ If I go to the ice cream shop, my will is limited to the choices available. If my friend is allergic to some, I am limited further _(by my empathy/concern)._ If my parent will only buy one flavor or I have no money, I am further limited. Outside philosophy departments and discussions, most people do use the two interchangeably _(not that many people use freedom of will)._
For "free will defence" my response is, "Isn't an OMNIPOTENT god will be capable to create a world without evil but still have free will, if he can't do that then how he's Omnipotent"
If you define omnipotence as doing whatever, then sure. But many define omnipotence as doing whatever is logically possible. It may be that a world where everyone has free will, but yet ni evil exists, isn’t possible logically.
@@EnejJohhemdont think they do, unless your listening to some weird religious people. If god's omnipotence was breaking logic then I dont see why many religious people would try to prove god using logic and i dont see why many of the top theists would define omnipotence contrary to your definition
@EnejJohhem actually no, at least if we are referring to educated religious people. The main problem with the free will defense is that in heaven God creates a better world and the existence of free will still possible. There are supposedly other ways of existing where you can be morally perfect (at least better than on earth) and have free will without causing much harm.
I love how polite and respectful Dr. Ehrman is. Every time Stephen asked a question, Dr. Ehrman was like, That's a good point and I can see why people would think that. Here's why that doesn't address the problem of evil
9:45 - This is the Pandora's Box objection which the philosopher Stephen Law has written about. If God's reasoning truly is incomprehensible, then how can we know that God doesn't lie to us and that the external world is not a delusion given to us by God? I would take it one step further and say that skeptical theism undermines our ability to know anything about God at all, in addition to not knowing anything about the external world.
There's also the problem of People that do Evil things as a direct result of severe neurological disability: clinical Schizophrenia, Neurologically induced psychopathy, Frontal Lobe defects etc.
I have migrated from the problem of "evil" to the problem of incompetence..... there really is no biblical narrative surrounding the avoidance and consequences of incompetence .
One way that we know we don't live in the best of all possible worlds is that the human brain is such a defective instrument, often misperceiving things, overreacting, dwelling on unhelpful concerns, harboring prejudices, etc. Which also undermines the "free will" argument when thoughts and actions are so often strongly influenced by instinct, illusions, etc.
I think the problem of good & evil is that people assume they are different things and not just levels of description of actions on the same scale (like a soil PH balance alkaline & acidic)… nothing wants to grow in either extreme so you choose the correct balance for what you’re trying to grow, but never is either non existent. You always have some acid in your alkaline or alkaline in your acid, or else it stops being soil.
The problem of evil is a problem of perception. There are two ways to look at the world; by state and by relationship. When you look at the world through state, good and evil appear as separate things, so we conclude that they must be able to exist independently of one another. But if you look at the world through relationship, good and evil appear as a dance whereby each exist dependently of the other. What has been observed in religion is that good and evil arise together and disappear together, thus the relationship means they are one, not two. By being ignorant of the relationship between them we naively think that it should be possible to have one without the other, but this is simply misperception turned into presupposition.
And what religion offers is a sense making pattern on how to interpret a relationship between good and evil and maybe offer a strategy on how to negotiate it.......
If our suffering isn't so bad because we'll be recompensated after death, does this also apply to the suffering of Jesus who gets to be ruler of the universe forever? If we can dismiss our own suffering, surely we can dismiss his.
My favourite response to "this is the best world" point revolves around heaven. If heaven is better than earth in every way, no pain, suffering war death ext. Than If even 1 of those traits would make earth better and isn't here. This cannot be the best world because God could have made it painless and suffering free as he did in heaven. Further, heaven could still be better than earth if even just war was removed but pain and suffering kept. It is a stupid argument given they all literally believe there is a perfect place they are destined to go after death.
I'm with the philosophers who say free will is incoherent. But even if not, Bart's argument works, but also, Does God have free will? Why does that not lead to evil for him? Regarding "making souls": did God have virtue & moral character without suffering? If yes, then he could have made us so. If no, since an omnipotent being can't really suffer, then he still doesn't have those. Further, why would anybody *need* such character if suffering didn't exist in the 1st place? It's circular. Regarding "we can't understand why": we don't need to. We know that it *is* suffering or "evil", and should be avoided where possible. If God is omnipotent, he could achieve any end without the suffering (as long as the suffering isn't the goal). Thus, God can't possibly have a compelling reason for allowing suffering. Unlike Bart, I *don't* respect them for believing without understanding. If you don't understand, you should withhold belief either way. "Best of all possible worlds"? Sure. Now you've removed God's omnipotence. Why would anybody worship him?
I read an interesting paper that explored the reasoning behind what makes something morally praiseworthy, as opposed to focusing on moral blame. The basic theories were either that something is praiseworthy if it was difficult for you to do, or praiseworthy if you sacrificed (or at least risked) something to do (or not do) it. But neither of these can be applied to the Christian God: Nothing is difficult for an omnipotent being, and God cannot sacrifice or risk anything. Therefore, God does not appear to be worthy of praise, and thus is not worthy of worship either.
When I was a christian I had my own theodicy. And I think it kind of holds up, but that the vast majority of christians won't ever take it. I wonder what you guys think about it. I argued, in every possible world where moral beings exist, the problem of evil exists. Because essentially being a moral being simply means that you are able to contrast some things as good and some things as evil. We have some sort of ruler from the greatest evil imaginable to the greatest good thing imaginable, with the center being morally neutral. So if we imagine a world in which God eliminated our greatest evil, let say bone cancer in children, the ruler would shift a little, the people of these world would point out to the next most evil thing when they discuss the problem of evil. So then God in that next world he eliminates the greatest evil, let say malaria, and so the ruler shifts a little and the people point out the next most evil thing as their problem of evil main example. So let say that God continues this process at infinitum, in one world he eliminates all hunger, in the next all depression, the next all sickness and so on. At some point people would start pointing out to things like their back being itchy as the biggest example of the problem of evil, an all good God wouldn't allow my back to feel itchy, or stones in my shoe and so on, it might sound ridiculous to us because those are not the greatest evils in our world, but it is not ridiculous to them, and those are the statistics they would cite in their debates. Then the morally neutral things to us will start to be the next evil they talk about, intead of why blind people exist, people will say, why do people with 20/20 vision exist, the worst vision possible, while the rest are above that. why are people that are not happy like the rest exist, why cannot everyone be happier. And so on. This process can also be repeated at infinitum upwards by the way, there are infinite possible worlds with even worst evils than our own, with versions of super cancer, illness that we don't even imagine and stuff like that, they might even find ridiculous the notion of complaining about cancer and hunger, since their biggest evils are so much worse. So the question is... can God stop at some point? If God can stop at some point, eliminate all possible evils so that no human will ever see anything as evil, then in my view, he essentially erased also the moral being, because no one is now able to distinguish between good an evil. But If God cannot stop and there are an infinite number of evils to erase, the moral being will always find the evil. Then we could be said to live in just an arbitrary stopping point and it is meaningless to say that we could be better, because there are infinite options above an below. So ultimately I used to argue that maybe the problem of evil is nothing but a natural consequence of creating moral beings, and that maybe the ultimate good that God did is creating moral beings. Which to me made sense. Sure if a parent have the option to shield their children from illness and harm, they would do it, but I don't think they would choose to do it through making their children not moral beings, so that they cannot even tell if something evil is happening to them. I think most parents would indeed choose for their children to be moral beings, even if that would mean that they will eventually experience evil.
Does the 'morally neutral' part of the ruler shifts as well? It seems to me that as long as there are absolutely morally neutral and absolutely morally good acts (which dont get shifted by a bit less evil in the world) then getting rid of the evil part still allows us to recognize good and neutral.
@@nemdenemam9753 No I think it shifts as we eliminate evil. People can easily see the lack of good as new evils. For instance, let us say that it is neutral to have a human body with regular health, and good if you have a human body with exceptional health, like metabolism above average, sight and hearing above average. Like let say it is evil to be blind, neutral to be 20/20 and good to be 20/10. If all sight disadvantages below 20/20 were to disappear. People would see sight of 20/20 as the worst sight and so the least desirable that gives people trouble against the people that have a sight of 20/10 and above. So I definitely think that what we call neutral would shift into being evil. People would suffer because they are in the lowest sections of the scale. Like just think about it... Would it even make sense to just measure goodness from 0 to infinity? What are they even comparing it to? The 0 would just be the least desirable thing and so it would become the new evil, the thing that people don't want in their lives.
@@archie8767 Which is clearly false. The absence of good and the absence of evil trace to the same point: Neutral indifference. You can't take away good and end up with evil, it doesn't work like that, and rather obviously so.
To the depths of suffering in this world, the claims of being rewarded after death are just insulting and ridiculous. Worse yet is the conflict of supposed free will and our ability to opt in or out of particular suffering. This goes beyond just being given a bad hand but also being coerced or even to play with such a hand. There are things that cannot be overcome.
@archie8767 They are referring to needless suffering. What is your argument for the portion of suffering in the World that produces no useful benefits to anyone or to any gods?
@@archie8767 For example, my mother was misdiagnosed with a pinched nerve in her neck. But doctors couldn't cure it. That's because the nerve was really pinched in her wrist. Bottom line: she suffered for an additional year because of this. Nobody gained from this needless suffering. She fired the doctor, so he lost. She suffered a bunch for a year, with nothing positive to show for it. God didn't get anything out of the arrangement. All parties lost; no benefit to anyone, hence needless suffering.
My thing with religion is this -- what makes 1 religion "better" than the others?? Especially when there are 4,000-10,000 different religions throughout the world??
Freddie Mercury, much like Voltaire did with Leibnitz, completely nailed that people get killed by people nonsense to the wall. "People get killed by people. People with guns." -Put out the Fire (Hot Space album)
The thing is, according to Jewish and Christian theology, it is NOT that suffering and evil are somehow necessary and unavoidable...or that it's the best that could be...or that it makes us stronger...it is ALL deliberately inflicted BY GOD in order to get even with Adam and Eve. And since "God is in control," and "God never makes mistakes," it follows that every single instance of suffering, evil, etc is a deliberate act of God. This is unavoidable from the perspective of any of the Abrahamic religions.
The way I see it, when one says having a "free will" (if there is even such a thing) necessitates the existence of evil, I hear evil is something worth enduring because free will's advantage outweighs it's disadvantage. But does it? Really? Evil act hurts the receiver and potentially sends the actor to hell, so I ask, why is free will desired at all, and why is it even presented as a good response to the question, "why is there evil?" As far as I understand, when one says God invented evil to give us free will, we should say, uhh no thank you I don't want free will then. Just give me the option where I don't potentially end up burning in hell forever or get tortured by a psychopath who is freely using his "free will"
Yeah I mean ask a Christian what the actual value of free will is and about all they'll ever say is something about how you can't love properly without it, but like... are you sure? How do you know that?
Also, the people proposing the best possible world argument probably also believe in heaven, i.e. a better possible world. Literally they present the antithesis to their own argument
(Not having see the full interview on Patreon and going by just from the clip) I would just like to point out that you can't compare books to guns. Guns are made with the explicit purpose of causing harm (if not killing), so there is very little that you can do with a gun other than harming and killing. Books on the other hand, only spread ideas; you may disagree with the ideas exposed in the book, but that doesn't mean the book is causing harm. If you think the book has harmful ideas you need only show how and why those ideas are harmful. So yes, he might have a point when saying books don't cause harm, people do
Skeptical Theism always struck me as the most ridiculous of all theodicies for the exact reason you briefly mentioned - the fact that it's so inconsistently applied. Or as I usually put it in debates: "God is all powerful and all-knowing. How DARE you, a mere mortal try to comprehend even the tiniest bit of His ways. Now that that's out of the way, let me tell you God's exact opinion on LGBTQ+ issues..."
If I was God, what would I do? Give me a moment and I will tell you First to go would be all hate And then all fear and suffering would evaporate I’d bless all children right from the start To love and believe in themselves and always follow their heart All the people would see eye to eye No one would steal nor cheat nor injure nor lie I would always help and always forgive With the struggles and mistakes you made when you lived Eternal bliss is not time well spent Instead of bliss how bout content And if you’re bored, here’s what I’ll do I’ll still provide a challenge or two And when you meet your final rest You’ll spend that time being your best There’ll be no war, no pain, no spite There’ll be no need to cry or suffer or struggle or fight If I were God, that’s what I’d do You’ve asked me now what about you?
I wanted to ask this but I have a hypothesis that plants yes plants, specifically the sentience of plants and its tendency to create defenses against disasters and predation is a good argument against the case of original sin.
The easiest answer to the free will defense is simply, that God has no good reason to not step in. He is not taking away free will. When we jail a murderer or hinder someone from murdering someone, are we taking away their free will or is it something bad we do? No.
Also lots of people go through very little adversity in life. Cushy people born rich in great countries. Are their souls "weak" and underdeveloped? Are they incapable of meeting God's trials? Seems to me that if the Christian denomination preaches sola fide, then such a person can just profess belief in Christ and go to Heaven without experiencing any soul-making hardships, so what was the point? And even if you argue good works and charity matter... what if the person happens to be born rich and gives a lot to charity, and because they don't have to work they sometimes volunteer? Not because any adversity convinced them otherwise, but because they just feel like it, or they're bored, or they want people to think well of them. If they didn't need suffering to shape themselves, what does that mean, exactly? Were they just born with money, power, AND an already-sufficiently-developed soul? How is THAT fair?
All the defences against the problem of evil require the god of the bible to not exist... 1. Free will, god is omniscient so you get no free will. 2. Spiritual growth/greater good comes from suffering. God is omnipotent so he could cause that same growth and same greater good without the suffering, because he has the power to do so. So for this to work it means their god doesnt exist... 3. Rewarded later... So why would an all knowing god need to do that when he could provide that reward without the suffering... 4. Unknowable god reasons. This is the same as the greater good argument covered above...
Does the Eschatological Theodicy then entail that there are grades and degrees of blessed afterlife? If someone who believes in (the right Christian) god and lives an ordinary life - you know, _tries_ to be reasonably good - gets to Heaven and a child who suffers greatly and starves to death before reaching the age of 5 gets to Heaven, are their afterlife experiences different? If their sufferings in this life are to be compensated afterwards, then does the blameless suffering of the child earn a morer heavener eternity? There _must_ be degrees of eternity, right? The mediocre or rich believer surely can't get the same reward as the most devout and altruistic, and the conscious and freely-chosen and -given sacrifice of the latter presumably can't be compared to the suffering of the abused or starving or fatally-ill child. If eternity with god is eternity with god, then where are the reward for the holy or the compensation for those who suffered? Is Heaven just an exclusive club with infinite degrees of access and membership?
Hardship strengthens one. After an infinity in Hell, one will become infinitely stronger, omnipotent even.. Clearly God had been judged and found wanting, and was sent to Hell forever. He got out just 6000 years ago.
Apologists are going to have a hard time going down the 'Best of All Possible Worlds' route if they believe that a) God is perfect, and b) there was once a time where only God existed. Surely the best possible world would be one in which God never created anything?
The Problem of Evil is solved easily enough, if God is not All-Powerful, not All-Knowing, not All-Loving, or not Personal. But Christians want to hold on to all of those properties. I think for example you could argue that without suffering, humanity would have no incentive to progress. But that's a God striving for the good of a species, not individuals.
Doesn't the whole concept of Eden kind of show that the best possible worlds argument falls apart? Unless somehow the Fall is necessary in which sin and death are supposed to always be and in that case doesn't the whole free will concept also fall apart too?
Only if taken chronologically. God experiences all time in the present. He didn't need to see what happened to create. God wasn't shocked that we fell. It was a blow, but not a shock.
The Fall WAS necessary, because God planned it from the beginning, otherwise the Son wouldn't exist. Classical Trinitarianism forces acceptance of the idea that a savior would be needed from eternity, because God cannot change and one aspect of God the Son is to be the Savior.
@@UryvichkThat notion would be rejected by Catholicism. The incarnation was an action. The creation was an action. Actions undertaken are not the Divine Essence.
regarding Abrahamic faiths: I tend to be irritated when their arguments countermand the very bases of their religions. To that point: Eve's "sin" gave humanity Agency. In effect, once humanity left the fabled Garden, We were on our own. other than Magic done by biblical characters, the only tangible effects on earth by a deity would be natural disasters... doesn't seem very benevolent to me... 🤷
Eve applied our agency negatively. Free will isn't choosing bad--that is the perversion of it. I can choose to do something good. I can obey a parent or not.
@@archie8767 Please clarify "applied negatively". I either read it as "agency is bad" or "removed agency". one is an opinion, and pointless given our reality, the other is a misunderstanding of the word "agency" so... ? Eve, not yet having partaken of the fruit of the tree, did not know right from wrong, nor good from evil. She had no contextual ability to comprehend Obedience, nor the ramifications of Disobedience; like a baby. furthermore, if the serpent had made a suggestion, but she'd lacked curiosity, she'd never have disobeyed, unless he'd commanded her and she was as an automaton, meaning that god knowingly gave her curiosity, despite her not having any need for it in the Garden, meaning he must have known and intended that she would eventually partake of that which was forbidden in the garden, OR he punished humans for Lucifer's actions. If Eve gained knowledge of evil acts, but not THAT they were evil, AND was curious, then they couldn't be trusted and needed to leave for no discernable reason. If she gained knowledge of WHAT was evil and WHAT was good, then there'd be little need to exile them, as, with that knowledge, they would have been able to make moral, informed decisions. Given that they were already immortal, as the tree of life had NOT been forbade them, and the ONLY act that WAS forbade them was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the former makes more sense, although it could be that both are true, and given curiosity... 🤷 only thousands of years into human civilization, after enough generations to populate the earth, did this god give a single bit of instruction to humanity through Abraham. (Noah really just got told, basically out of the blue, that god was gunna kill everyone for being bad, but not much more). Prophets would go on to do magic, and contradict each other, and never did normal humans get quantifiable aid, as separation from god WAS the punishment, mortality the curse, so god, in any guise, won't be "taking the wheel" for anyone, and no one who claims otherwise as presented a single iota of reasonable evidence to the contrary.
@@lady_draguliana784 I think you're reading too far into this account. The point is that at some point, humans had souls and were culpable to their conscience.
@lady_draguliana784 The exact nature of the fall is a secondary curiosity. Not that it doesn't matter, but it isn't critical to the fact that we fell by some sin and understanding.
@@archie8767 souls aside, that's precisely my point. Theological or dogmatic justifications of immorality (religious child brides for instance), patent absolutions for unethical acts without honest or legitimate change (confession rituals or buying indulgences), and abdications of responsibilities for decisions ("Jesus take the wheel!") all irritate me to no end for this very reason.
There is another aspect that comes into play with natural evil. Let’s say that we accept that god needed to have things like plate tectonics in existence for life to come about. This means god isn’t omnipotent, but perhaps some theist is willing to give up on that aspect of the monotheistic god (after all, omnipotence is a logically incoherent idea anyway, you could end up with a stronger position by discarding it). Very well: we have a god who is not pm impotent, and needs to have earthquakes so that life can exist. But these earthquakes cause untold suffering and death. And they are localized to specific times and areas of the world. If a god who is not omnipotent cannot PREVENT earthquakes… does that mean that she cannot do anything else about them either? An easy and loving solution would be to INFORM people about them - so that even if they are still dying, at least they know why. Remove some of the horror and confusion. Better yet… WARN people before they are about to happen. Or warn people about settling in areas where they are common. Surely that would be both loving and within the reach of any god we imagine? And yet it does not happen. That is something a human could do. Imagine how much more a powerful superbeing could do!
Sean Carroll and I claim causality/causation isn't fundamental then how could superdeterminism or determinism be true???? Libertarian free will exist!!!
I watched a handful videos of Dr Ehrman. I find him interesting but having the same message each time. I conclude with this video that it's not his fault. You succeed to break that habit that not him but interviewers have to always ask the same questions.
Leibniz did not mean it that way...he believed that, given the conditions, this is the best that could have been..including as a result of evolution...
If everything is in god’s plan and the believer has to just trust the way it is because god intended it in that way for mysterious ways, why would that believer, for example, take their sick child to a doctor? Why trying to find a cure to an illness? Why caring about medicine and medical expertise? If this is the case, the believers should just let thing go in god’s hands…….. right?
@Uryvichk I don't believe someone who believes in God should hold to the above. I don't deny your atheistic objection. It's the logical conclusion of atheism.
@@archie8767 oh I agree. Believers never say that. I know. A very close (and dear to me) relative is an evangelical Christian and she prays “oh lord we know you know everything but we are asking you to completely change this in Jesus name” I always ask her the same (and she gets upset for it) why are you trying to change gods’ eternal dispensation of things? Why bother? He knows everything and has disposed everything.
Does the existence of an omniscient god negate free will? If God possesses omniscience, then all events' outcomes are known in advance, suggesting that our choices are predetermined rather than truly free. Moreover, the presence of a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, influencing humans to eat from the tree of knowledge, raises questions about God's role in these events.
The mere knowledge of the outcome of a "free choice" appears to be causally determinative of that choice, which is paradoxical. This suggests you cannot be omniscient if libertarian free will exists, or that libertarian free will doesn't exist (or both, I guess).
It is absolutely impossible to do harm to a baby or to a child who has not yet reached the age of reason, especially if his/her parents are of the right religion. The simple fact of sending them to heaven before they can spoil their salvation should be revered. And if you make them suffer before they die, any suffering before salvation is ridiculously small compared with a life in heaven that outlasts every star in the universe and the stars that are not yet born. Or maybe, just maybe, the very idea of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god is pure idiocy.
So.... given that God supposedly gave us lust, ego, pride, rage, etc. I don't find it too far fetched that He also gave us a brain and wants us to not use it.
Is a mudslide "evil"? Did it do it intentionally, because there were people there? Was Gaia pissed at them for some reason? (Like for polluting the planet beyond habitable levels?) Did the people know that there had been mudslides there in the past, but chose to live there anyway? Shouldn't humans be subject to the same laws of survival as all other animals? Conflating "evil" with "tragedy" is in itself a tragedy... Sorry, guys, but it is the existence of freewill that constitutes the ability for "evil" to exist. But if you want to use your freewill to ignore that fact, so be it.
I never could see hurricanes, earthquakes, or even cancer as evil. Evil can only be the things humans do to each other or unnecessarily to other species. All of them are tragic, but only the ones that have intention behind them can be actually evil.
Wheres the freewill in no choice but to make a choice. Adam and eve that is. Wheres the freewill in suffering the consequences of what someone else did? Wheres the freewill in faith, not works? The former, dependent on yes, what someone else did or didnt do. the cross) wheres the Justice here?
The free will and absence of evil in haven could perhaps be explained by the purgatory, after which souls don't even consider doing evil. But that's just an ex catholic talking in me.
That doesn’t seem like a solution to me. Why couldn’t god have created a world in which all humans have free will but never consider doing evil from the start? And if he couldn’t do that, then why is a world with free creatures who do evil better than a world with no free creatures at all?
@@moonhouse3540 Good questions, I have no idea. You will have to ask him, which I doubt:) To the first question, maybe if there is no evil there is no good. Everything would just be normal, and there would be no way to earn your place in haven. To the second question, maybe it's better for good people. I think the majority of people are good, or at least not evil and they deserve to experience life. It's just usually only bad news on the tv. But then why some good people suffer greatly? Idk. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The more I think about it, the more I find it hard to believe in gods defined by humans.
@@moonhouse3540 Not just that: God could simply have created a world where no being is capable of being affected by evil actions. That is, beings can still contemplate evil, and attempt to do it, they just won't ever succeed. You try to murder someone, the knife just breaks or the gun just jams. You want to verbally abuse someone, you just choke up a little until you have to stop and breathe quietly. You're free to WANT to do those things, you just can't actually do them no matter how bad you want to, much like how I can't fly no matter how bad I want to. People could still be judged for their intentions and attempted actions, without the risk of them actually bringing about harmful results. Surely God could accomplish this.
Atheist here. Instead of trashing christianity and islam (which we know is false), build a case for what we shouidl believe now. The thouisandsd that die of starvation... what do we do with that?
Believe in regards to what? There's no positive belief an atheist must necessarily hold. Plenty of atheists and atheist/secular humanist communities all over the world are actively working to help the needy.
We start by responding with empathy. Empathy is a finite psychological resource and does not scale but we can at least abandon the "not my problem"/"they deserve their fate"/etc. attitude. Yes, solving starvation in the world is OUR problem, our colective problem as humanity and our individual problem whenever we have the opportunity to do something about it. And the same applies to the other problems of humanity like climate change, racism, sexism, etc.. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who desperately try to reject reality and cling to their biases and in doing so become some of the most vile creatures on earth. We can step by step figure reality out the scientific way but in the meanwhile go and punch some nazis.
@@_Omega_Weapon While what you say is true it is worth acknowledging that many people do feel a need for a positive belief. And I believe we should approach this need with empathy. That does not mean that we actually have to provide a replacement constructive belief. Just that approaching people with this need with understanding and consolation and showing a pathway towards feeling that need less is more helpful and productive than dismissing this need. 🖖
If any answer/action/event can be found true without God then there is no absolute God that is the answer to everything! If evil/death/suffering exists it's because God allows it to
THE REASON EVIL EXISTS IS TO MAXIMIZE THE WHOLE COSMOS’ TOTAL SUM GOODNESS. SUPPOSE WE RANK POSSIBLE WORLDS FROM BEST TO WORST. EVEN AFTER CREATING THE BEST, ONE SHOULD CREATE THE SECOND-BEST, BECAUSE IT STILL CONTAINS SOME BEAUTY AND HAPPINESS. THEN CONTINUE THROUGH THE SERIES, CREATING EACH UNTIL REACHING THOSE WHERE WICKEDNESS AND SUFFERING OUTWEIGH GOOD. SOME WORLDS WILL INCLUDE MUCH INIQUITY BUT STILL BE GOOD ON NET. THIS IS ONE SUCH.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
This clip is from a 50-minute podcast that's now available to all Patreon and TH-cam members: www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
Please be sure to check out Dr. Ehrman's course on why he is not a Christian: tinyurl.com/yaxumefy
While the whole podcast is currently available only to supporters of the channel, know that it'll be available for everyone to enjoy soon.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Why didn't you ask him why he thinks non-Europeans are subhuman?
The evil argument has been updated. This is the ancient argument.
Please Bart, don't try to discuss Science. Horrible. 7:14 He doesn't even know what the big bang was.
Bart debated Dinesh who went on to Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1983. Why has Bart refused to debate Richard Carrier on a historical jesus?
Stephen Fry dismantled any (past or future) apologist’s defense of suffering with four words: “ Bone cancer in children.” That’s all I need to be convinced there’s no LOVING god.
But there might be a morally sufficient reason for it!
@@wet-readEh !
@@wet-read really? care to enlighten us? If your argument is that we can't know what is good or bad (because god is so far above us that we can't know what his ultimate aim is) then maybe you could answer this: How do we know if god is good or bad? We can't go on what he says, as he might be an evil god who is lying and we can't know based on his actions as we don't know if they are good or bad. So how do we know?
@@bjhcvuaerpigfy
Relax, I was just messing around 😃
P.S. The philosopher Sharon Street wrote an essay tearing apart that stuff. It is called "If Everything Happens For a Reason, Then We Don't Know What Reasons Are". I highly recommend it!
My friend has bone cancer he is a Sikh I tell him he's brought it on himself his name is Singh like the last guru. Ganesh could survive bone cancer he's many alms 😆 seriously though arms usually come as pair
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
- Galileo Galilei
Barts response at 6:35 reminded me of this quote from Galileo.
I love how Dr Ehrman is so happy doing interviews with the TH-cam religion, history and philosophy crowd. I think a lot of the older academic types still see TH-cam as non serious and insignificant, but I think he gets that it's becoming a decentralized replacement for a lot of journalism and popular education platforms. Seems like a real great guy both personally and in his field from all his interviews and debates I've seen.
Dr Ehrman is quite entertaining and knowledgeable. It took me a while to to get used to his mannerisms. Now that I have I love to hear him discuss all aspects of the Bible and judeo Christian beliefs. So glad you have him on your channel.
Dr. Ehrman was instrumental in my being comfortable with my atheism. I was an atheist before reading any of his books or watching any of his discussions, but his logic has reinforced my comfort in what I believe and why. Thanks for providing this clip. I hope it helps others discover their beliefs as well.
I discovered Bart Ehrman a little over a month ago and read "Misquoting Jesus." It's really fascinating and I don't understand how I've never heard of it. Excellent conversation
I always love a Bart Ehrman video. ❤
"Mum, am i evil?"
"No honey you are a spider, now tight the cocoon around that fly"
Soul-building theodicy is basically an author making his characters in his work suffer so they undergo character development.
Two of my favorite people ❤❤❤
The definitive concise treatment of the subject. Share this if you respect people's use of their time.
This is just a treat! Thank you for this!
Dr. Ehrman is great. Finally a guy that makes sense on the topic of the Bible! 👍
The free will argument has always been funny to me because I immediately think of what heaven would have to be like. Basically one of three conclusions would have to be reached and each have their own baggage for religious people.
1. Heaven is a place without evil because it lacks free will. This would make a lot of what religious people say about god wanting us to have choices and not be robots be kind of pointless.
2. Heaven is a place with free will and also must have evil the same way the mortal world does. This would make heaven basically just an immortal version of our world which isn’t very heavenly at all.
3. Heaven has free will but exists without evil. This is the most challenging of all because if god could make a world where everyone freely chooses to accept and love him then why make a version where people wouldn’t freely accept god?
3 is what is true (but not exactly as you phrased it). Heaven is the reward of choosing God, not a distinct new "life." Those in Heaven have cemented their wills to be with God. Those in hell have refused God and abandoned Him.
We'd say that someone in Heaven has accepted God as the ultimate good and once purified of sin, would find sin miserable and absurd (it would be like putting your hand on a stove-- you know it will hurt your).
The idea of people having free will under this particular god (Judeo-Christian) is very hard to reconcile with his characteristic of being omniscient, because if he already knows everything that will happen then everyone else only has an illusion of a choice.
@@archie8767 doesn’t god know everything that will happen from beginning to end the moment he made everything? If that’s the case then why did he create souls that he knew were going to choose to deny him and be sent to hell?
This is the problem with version 3 of heaven. If god doesn’t want people to go to hell then why did he create them knowing what would happen to them especially if he could’ve created them to freely accept them?
Obviously if heaven has free will but no evil then free will can’t be the reason for evil. That reason would have to be god since he created people with full knowledge they would commit evil acts while also having the power to create them to have free will and never choose to commit evil.
@@grantparker6092 All of our actions are simultaneous to God. He is looking at our temporal universe as if we were overlooking a table. All things happen at once, and he constantly permits them to happen.
Heaven is the end of a choice. If one chooses to love God, his nature becomes a habit. In habitually loving God, we know Him more. In knowing Him more, we see the depth of goodness. Knowing the depth of goodness, our wills have better grip of what we actually desire. Because we have fully embraced God, we no longer sin.
The above requires that we have chosen God. The alternative is to refuse Him in favor of reprobation. One must choose to sin.
Can't wait to listen to the full conversation. He seems pretty cool.
About the free will defense, if I choose to do something evil, like rape or murder, then free will would still be denied to someone, it's just that instead of god denying it to me, I deny it to another human. So it calls into question if that kind of free will should be preserved.
You aren't denying their free will, you are denying them freedom of will to not be violated in such a way, but the free will proponent would still believe they have free will. To remove free will would be to determine their actions, not their conditions. Of course, libertarian free will/choice making is fundamentally incoherent.
The idea of god allowing free will is in respect to god not interefering in human free will, of course this excuse fails when you put it along the "omnibenevolent" characteristic of their god, but that is a different question.
@@RogstinWhat's the difference between free will and freedom of will?
@@Rogstin If i pull your eyes out, you can't see. I limited your options.
@@rodomolina7995 Free will is the idea of choice making. That I can make a choice that is _not_ the result of external factors. This doesn't make much sense.
Freedom of will is the condition under which I am operating _(free will or not)._ If I go to the ice cream shop, my will is limited to the choices available. If my friend is allergic to some, I am limited further _(by my empathy/concern)._ If my parent will only buy one flavor or I have no money, I am further limited.
Outside philosophy departments and discussions, most people do use the two interchangeably _(not that many people use freedom of will)._
Fantastic video, it concisely give the key answers !
Super guest and a thoroughly nice mam. Best to you, Bart
For "free will defence" my response is, "Isn't an OMNIPOTENT god will be capable to create a world without evil but still have free will, if he can't do that then how he's Omnipotent"
If you define omnipotence as doing whatever, then sure. But many define omnipotence as doing whatever is logically possible. It may be that a world where everyone has free will, but yet ni evil exists, isn’t possible logically.
@@LittleHarryBrother1 religious people usually define omnipotence doing whatever, breaking logic whatever.
@@EnejJohhemdont think they do, unless your listening to some weird religious people. If god's omnipotence was breaking logic then I dont see why many religious people would try to prove god using logic and i dont see why many of the top theists would define omnipotence contrary to your definition
@EnejJohhem actually no, at least if we are referring to educated religious people. The main problem with the free will defense is that in heaven God creates a better world and the existence of free will still possible.
There are supposedly other ways of existing where you can be morally perfect (at least better than on earth) and have free will without causing much harm.
@@EnejJohhemNo, most religious people understand God can’t create a married bachelor. Lol, idk what religious people you’re talking to.
I too use free will in heaven argument and it stops the evil free will claim everytime
I love how polite and respectful Dr. Ehrman is. Every time Stephen asked a question, Dr. Ehrman was like, That's a good point and I can see why people would think that. Here's why that doesn't address the problem of evil
"Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people" except for those times when guns accidentally discharge..
Had to sit through ‘one for Israel ‘ ad for a couple of seconds , totally worth it
9:45 - This is the Pandora's Box objection which the philosopher Stephen Law has written about. If God's reasoning truly is incomprehensible, then how can we know that God doesn't lie to us and that the external world is not a delusion given to us by God? I would take it one step further and say that skeptical theism undermines our ability to know anything about God at all, in addition to not knowing anything about the external world.
There's also the problem of People that do Evil things as a direct result of severe neurological disability: clinical Schizophrenia, Neurologically induced psychopathy, Frontal Lobe defects etc.
Podcast gang
In our postmodernist era, we need more intro/outro songs this tuff when discussing philosophy, and not resort to classical music as a default
Bart is the man. He's always like, "eat my shorts."
Rationality Rules, excellent Q÷A!👍💙💖🥰✌
Great video as always,love the God of War T-shirt
That was just lovely 👌🏼
what a nice concise summary,,well done
I have migrated from the problem of "evil" to the problem of incompetence..... there really is no biblical narrative surrounding the avoidance and consequences of incompetence .
One way that we know we don't live in the best of all possible worlds is that the human brain is such a defective instrument, often misperceiving things, overreacting, dwelling on unhelpful concerns, harboring prejudices, etc. Which also undermines the "free will" argument when thoughts and actions are so often strongly influenced by instinct, illusions, etc.
Love you Steve!
I think the problem of good & evil is that people assume they are different things and not just levels of description of actions on the same scale (like a soil PH balance alkaline & acidic)… nothing wants to grow in either extreme so you choose the correct balance for what you’re trying to grow, but never is either non existent. You always have some acid in your alkaline or alkaline in your acid, or else it stops being soil.
The 4 noble truths make a whole lot more sense
The problem of evil is a problem of perception. There are two ways to look at the world; by state and by relationship. When you look at the world through state, good and evil appear as separate things, so we conclude that they must be able to exist independently of one another. But if you look at the world through relationship, good and evil appear as a dance whereby each exist dependently of the other. What has been observed in religion is that good and evil arise together and disappear together, thus the relationship means they are one, not two. By being ignorant of the relationship between them we naively think that it should be possible to have one without the other, but this is simply misperception turned into presupposition.
And what religion offers is a sense making pattern on how to interpret a relationship between good and evil and maybe offer a strategy on how to negotiate it.......
If this is the best of ALL possible worlds, how will Heaven be "better"!?
Question about heaven is quite a good one 🙂
Love to see you debate Dennis Prager, Ben Shipiro, and Jordan Peterson in a forum.
Better include Jonathan Pageau and Douglas Murray while you're at it too......'>......
💙 love you two.
If our suffering isn't so bad because we'll be recompensated after death, does this also apply to the suffering of Jesus who gets to be ruler of the universe forever? If we can dismiss our own suffering, surely we can dismiss his.
I love that Dr. Ehrman opted to take this call outside of his brick home.
My favourite response to "this is the best world" point revolves around heaven. If heaven is better than earth in every way, no pain, suffering war death ext. Than If even 1 of those traits would make earth better and isn't here. This cannot be the best world because God could have made it painless and suffering free as he did in heaven. Further, heaven could still be better than earth if even just war was removed but pain and suffering kept. It is a stupid argument given they all literally believe there is a perfect place they are destined to go after death.
Yes, heaven makes a mockery of most of the argument.
I'm with the philosophers who say free will is incoherent. But even if not, Bart's argument works, but also, Does God have free will? Why does that not lead to evil for him?
Regarding "making souls": did God have virtue & moral character without suffering? If yes, then he could have made us so. If no, since an omnipotent being can't really suffer, then he still doesn't have those. Further, why would anybody *need* such character if suffering didn't exist in the 1st place? It's circular.
Regarding "we can't understand why": we don't need to. We know that it *is* suffering or "evil", and should be avoided where possible. If God is omnipotent, he could achieve any end without the suffering (as long as the suffering isn't the goal). Thus, God can't possibly have a compelling reason for allowing suffering. Unlike Bart, I *don't* respect them for believing without understanding. If you don't understand, you should withhold belief either way.
"Best of all possible worlds"? Sure. Now you've removed God's omnipotence. Why would anybody worship him?
I read an interesting paper that explored the reasoning behind what makes something morally praiseworthy, as opposed to focusing on moral blame. The basic theories were either that something is praiseworthy if it was difficult for you to do, or praiseworthy if you sacrificed (or at least risked) something to do (or not do) it. But neither of these can be applied to the Christian God: Nothing is difficult for an omnipotent being, and God cannot sacrifice or risk anything. Therefore, God does not appear to be worthy of praise, and thus is not worthy of worship either.
*God is the clay & humanity, the sculptor.*
_More like, "made in our image"._
Thankyou...
When I was a christian I had my own theodicy. And I think it kind of holds up, but that the vast majority of christians won't ever take it. I wonder what you guys think about it.
I argued, in every possible world where moral beings exist, the problem of evil exists. Because essentially being a moral being simply means that you are able to contrast some things as good and some things as evil. We have some sort of ruler from the greatest evil imaginable to the greatest good thing imaginable, with the center being morally neutral. So if we imagine a world in which God eliminated our greatest evil, let say bone cancer in children, the ruler would shift a little, the people of these world would point out to the next most evil thing when they discuss the problem of evil. So then God in that next world he eliminates the greatest evil, let say malaria, and so the ruler shifts a little and the people point out the next most evil thing as their problem of evil main example. So let say that God continues this process at infinitum, in one world he eliminates all hunger, in the next all depression, the next all sickness and so on. At some point people would start pointing out to things like their back being itchy as the biggest example of the problem of evil, an all good God wouldn't allow my back to feel itchy, or stones in my shoe and so on, it might sound ridiculous to us because those are not the greatest evils in our world, but it is not ridiculous to them, and those are the statistics they would cite in their debates. Then the morally neutral things to us will start to be the next evil they talk about, intead of why blind people exist, people will say, why do people with 20/20 vision exist, the worst vision possible, while the rest are above that. why are people that are not happy like the rest exist, why cannot everyone be happier. And so on.
This process can also be repeated at infinitum upwards by the way, there are infinite possible worlds with even worst evils than our own, with versions of super cancer, illness that we don't even imagine and stuff like that, they might even find ridiculous the notion of complaining about cancer and hunger, since their biggest evils are so much worse.
So the question is... can God stop at some point? If God can stop at some point, eliminate all possible evils so that no human will ever see anything as evil, then in my view, he essentially erased also the moral being, because no one is now able to distinguish between good an evil. But If God cannot stop and there are an infinite number of evils to erase, the moral being will always find the evil. Then we could be said to live in just an arbitrary stopping point and it is meaningless to say that we could be better, because there are infinite options above an below.
So ultimately I used to argue that maybe the problem of evil is nothing but a natural consequence of creating moral beings, and that maybe the ultimate good that God did is creating moral beings.
Which to me made sense. Sure if a parent have the option to shield their children from illness and harm, they would do it, but I don't think they would choose to do it through making their children not moral beings, so that they cannot even tell if something evil is happening to them. I think most parents would indeed choose for their children to be moral beings, even if that would mean that they will eventually experience evil.
Does the 'morally neutral' part of the ruler shifts as well? It seems to me that as long as there are absolutely morally neutral and absolutely morally good acts (which dont get shifted by a bit less evil in the world) then getting rid of the evil part still allows us to recognize good and neutral.
@@nemdenemam9753 No I think it shifts as we eliminate evil. People can easily see the lack of good as new evils.
For instance, let us say that it is neutral to have a human body with regular health, and good if you have a human body with exceptional health, like metabolism above average, sight and hearing above average.
Like let say it is evil to be blind, neutral to be 20/20 and good to be 20/10.
If all sight disadvantages below 20/20 were to disappear. People would see sight of 20/20 as the worst sight and so the least desirable that gives people trouble against the people that have a sight of 20/10 and above. So I definitely think that what we call neutral would shift into being evil. People would suffer because they are in the lowest sections of the scale.
Like just think about it... Would it even make sense to just measure goodness from 0 to infinity? What are they even comparing it to? The 0 would just be the least desirable thing and so it would become the new evil, the thing that people don't want in their lives.
A Christian would say that which is maximally good is God, and that which is evil is a deprivation of God.
@@archie8767 Which is clearly false. The absence of good and the absence of evil trace to the same point: Neutral indifference. You can't take away good and end up with evil, it doesn't work like that, and rather obviously so.
To the depths of suffering in this world, the claims of being rewarded after death are just insulting and ridiculous.
Worse yet is the conflict of supposed free will and our ability to opt in or out of particular suffering. This goes beyond just being given a bad hand but also being coerced or even to play with such a hand.
There are things that cannot be overcome.
Why ought we not suffer?
@archie8767 They are referring to needless suffering. What is your argument for the portion of suffering in the World that produces no useful benefits to anyone or to any gods?
@@danmurray1143 Why is it needless?
@@archie8767 For example, my mother was misdiagnosed with a pinched nerve in her neck. But doctors couldn't cure it. That's because the nerve was really pinched in her wrist. Bottom line: she suffered for an additional year because of this. Nobody gained from this needless suffering. She fired the doctor, so he lost. She suffered a bunch for a year, with nothing positive to show for it. God didn't get anything out of the arrangement. All parties lost; no benefit to anyone, hence needless suffering.
My thing with religion is this -- what makes 1 religion "better" than the others?? Especially when there are 4,000-10,000 different religions throughout the world??
Freddie Mercury, much like Voltaire did with Leibnitz, completely nailed that people get killed by people nonsense to the wall.
"People get killed by people.
People with guns."
-Put out the Fire (Hot Space album)
Correction: song was written by Brian May, not Freddie.
A good video, shame there was audio problems.
The thing is, according to Jewish and Christian theology, it is NOT that suffering and evil are somehow necessary and unavoidable...or that it's the best that could be...or that it makes us stronger...it is ALL deliberately inflicted BY GOD in order to get even with Adam and Eve. And since "God is in control," and "God never makes mistakes," it follows that every single instance of suffering, evil, etc is a deliberate act of God. This is unavoidable from the perspective of any of the Abrahamic religions.
The way I see it, when one says having a "free will" (if there is even such a thing) necessitates the existence of evil, I hear evil is something worth enduring because free will's advantage outweighs it's disadvantage. But does it? Really? Evil act hurts the receiver and potentially sends the actor to hell, so I ask, why is free will desired at all, and why is it even presented as a good response to the question, "why is there evil?" As far as I understand, when one says God invented evil to give us free will, we should say, uhh no thank you I don't want free will then. Just give me the option where I don't potentially end up burning in hell forever or get tortured by a psychopath who is freely using his "free will"
Yeah I mean ask a Christian what the actual value of free will is and about all they'll ever say is something about how you can't love properly without it, but like... are you sure? How do you know that?
Also, the people proposing the best possible world argument probably also believe in heaven, i.e. a better possible world. Literally they present the antithesis to their own argument
As much as I would want to have an afterlife, I just don't believe there is such a fantastical thing.
Oh Steve You forgot the Greater Good Theodicy.
I think it goes hand in hand with skeptical theism.
(Not having see the full interview on Patreon and going by just from the clip) I would just like to point out that you can't compare books to guns. Guns are made with the explicit purpose of causing harm (if not killing), so there is very little that you can do with a gun other than harming and killing. Books on the other hand, only spread ideas; you may disagree with the ideas exposed in the book, but that doesn't mean the book is causing harm. If you think the book has harmful ideas you need only show how and why those ideas are harmful. So yes, he might have a point when saying books don't cause harm, people do
Great ending
Skeptical Theism always struck me as the most ridiculous of all theodicies for the exact reason you briefly mentioned - the fact that it's so inconsistently applied. Or as I usually put it in debates: "God is all powerful and all-knowing. How DARE you, a mere mortal try to comprehend even the tiniest bit of His ways. Now that that's out of the way, let me tell you God's exact opinion on LGBTQ+ issues..."
If I was God, what would I do?
Give me a moment and I will tell you
First to go would be all hate
And then all fear and suffering would evaporate
I’d bless all children right from the start
To love and believe in themselves and always follow their heart
All the people would see eye to eye
No one would steal nor cheat nor injure nor lie
I would always help and always forgive
With the struggles and mistakes you made when you lived
Eternal bliss is not time well spent
Instead of bliss how bout content
And if you’re bored, here’s what I’ll do
I’ll still provide a challenge or two
And when you meet your final rest
You’ll spend that time being your best
There’ll be no war, no pain, no spite
There’ll be no need to cry or suffer or struggle or fight
If I were God, that’s what I’d do
You’ve asked me now what about you?
I wanted to ask this but I have a hypothesis that plants yes plants, specifically the sentience of plants and its tendency to create defenses against disasters and predation is a good argument against the case of original sin.
The easiest answer to the free will defense is simply, that God has no good reason to not step in. He is not taking away free will. When we jail a murderer or hinder someone from murdering someone, are we taking away their free will or is it something bad we do? No.
If you can’t interview Bart directly; at least you can interview his ghost.
What debate is king Bart referring to where he got angry at this Muslim?
Going through adversity can improve ethical and moral behaviour however it can also do the opposite.
Also lots of people go through very little adversity in life. Cushy people born rich in great countries. Are their souls "weak" and underdeveloped? Are they incapable of meeting God's trials? Seems to me that if the Christian denomination preaches sola fide, then such a person can just profess belief in Christ and go to Heaven without experiencing any soul-making hardships, so what was the point? And even if you argue good works and charity matter... what if the person happens to be born rich and gives a lot to charity, and because they don't have to work they sometimes volunteer? Not because any adversity convinced them otherwise, but because they just feel like it, or they're bored, or they want people to think well of them. If they didn't need suffering to shape themselves, what does that mean, exactly? Were they just born with money, power, AND an already-sufficiently-developed soul? How is THAT fair?
@@Uryvichk great point.
“Free will” is an illusion.
All the defences against the problem of evil require the god of the bible to not exist...
1. Free will, god is omniscient so you get no free will.
2. Spiritual growth/greater good comes from suffering. God is omnipotent so he could cause that same growth and same greater good without the suffering, because he has the power to do so. So for this to work it means their god doesnt exist...
3. Rewarded later... So why would an all knowing god need to do that when he could provide that reward without the suffering...
4. Unknowable god reasons. This is the same as the greater good argument covered above...
Does the Eschatological Theodicy then entail that there are grades and degrees of blessed afterlife? If someone who believes in (the right Christian) god and lives an ordinary life - you know, _tries_ to be reasonably good - gets to Heaven and a child who suffers greatly and starves to death before reaching the age of 5 gets to Heaven, are their afterlife experiences different? If their sufferings in this life are to be compensated afterwards, then does the blameless suffering of the child earn a morer heavener eternity? There _must_ be degrees of eternity, right? The mediocre or rich believer surely can't get the same reward as the most devout and altruistic, and the conscious and freely-chosen and -given sacrifice of the latter presumably can't be compared to the suffering of the abused or starving or fatally-ill child. If eternity with god is eternity with god, then where are the reward for the holy or the compensation for those who suffered? Is Heaven just an exclusive club with infinite degrees of access and membership?
'I just wanna talk about God's glorious plan'
Lmao
Hardship strengthens one.
After an infinity in Hell, one will become infinitely stronger, omnipotent even..
Clearly God had been judged and found wanting, and was sent to Hell forever.
He got out just 6000 years ago.
Apologists are going to have a hard time going down the 'Best of All Possible Worlds' route if they believe that a) God is perfect, and b) there was once a time where only God existed. Surely the best possible world would be one in which God never created anything?
But if he's perfect and nobody else exists, wouldn't that be an imperfect perfect because if nobody can witness the perfection it's kinda absent.
@@chandir7752 I guess God is insecure and needs to show off.
The Problem of Evil is solved easily enough, if God is not All-Powerful, not All-Knowing, not All-Loving, or not Personal. But Christians want to hold on to all of those properties. I think for example you could argue that without suffering, humanity would have no incentive to progress. But that's a God striving for the good of a species, not individuals.
Strength is seldom a choice...
Doesn't the whole concept of Eden kind of show that the best possible worlds argument falls apart? Unless somehow the Fall is necessary in which sin and death are supposed to always be and in that case doesn't the whole free will concept also fall apart too?
Only if taken chronologically. God experiences all time in the present. He didn't need to see what happened to create. God wasn't shocked that we fell. It was a blow, but not a shock.
The Fall WAS necessary, because God planned it from the beginning, otherwise the Son wouldn't exist. Classical Trinitarianism forces acceptance of the idea that a savior would be needed from eternity, because God cannot change and one aspect of God the Son is to be the Savior.
@@UryvichkThat notion would be rejected by Catholicism. The incarnation was an action. The creation was an action. Actions undertaken are not the Divine Essence.
regarding Abrahamic faiths: I tend to be irritated when their arguments countermand the very bases of their religions.
To that point: Eve's "sin" gave humanity Agency. In effect, once humanity left the fabled Garden, We were on our own. other than Magic done by biblical characters, the only tangible effects on earth by a deity would be natural disasters... doesn't seem very benevolent to me... 🤷
Eve applied our agency negatively. Free will isn't choosing bad--that is the perversion of it. I can choose to do something good. I can obey a parent or not.
@@archie8767 Please clarify "applied negatively". I either read it as "agency is bad" or "removed agency". one is an opinion, and pointless given our reality, the other is a misunderstanding of the word "agency" so... ?
Eve, not yet having partaken of the fruit of the tree, did not know right from wrong, nor good from evil. She had no contextual ability to comprehend Obedience, nor the ramifications of Disobedience; like a baby. furthermore, if the serpent had made a suggestion, but she'd lacked curiosity, she'd never have disobeyed, unless he'd commanded her and she was as an automaton, meaning that god knowingly gave her curiosity, despite her not having any need for it in the Garden, meaning he must have known and intended that she would eventually partake of that which was forbidden in the garden, OR he punished humans for Lucifer's actions.
If Eve gained knowledge of evil acts, but not THAT they were evil, AND was curious, then they couldn't be trusted and needed to leave for no discernable reason. If she gained knowledge of WHAT was evil and WHAT was good, then there'd be little need to exile them, as, with that knowledge, they would have been able to make moral, informed decisions. Given that they were already immortal, as the tree of life had NOT been forbade them, and the ONLY act that WAS forbade them was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the former makes more sense, although it could be that both are true, and given curiosity... 🤷
only thousands of years into human civilization, after enough generations to populate the earth, did this god give a single bit of instruction to humanity through Abraham. (Noah really just got told, basically out of the blue, that god was gunna kill everyone for being bad, but not much more). Prophets would go on to do magic, and contradict each other, and never did normal humans get quantifiable aid, as separation from god WAS the punishment, mortality the curse, so god, in any guise, won't be "taking the wheel" for anyone, and no one who claims otherwise as presented a single iota of reasonable evidence to the contrary.
@@lady_draguliana784 I think you're reading too far into this account. The point is that at some point, humans had souls and were culpable to their conscience.
@lady_draguliana784 The exact nature of the fall is a secondary curiosity. Not that it doesn't matter, but it isn't critical to the fact that we fell by some sin and understanding.
@@archie8767 souls aside, that's precisely my point. Theological or dogmatic justifications of immorality (religious child brides for instance), patent absolutions for unethical acts without honest or legitimate change (confession rituals or buying indulgences), and abdications of responsibilities for decisions ("Jesus take the wheel!") all irritate me to no end for this very reason.
Where can i get all fallacies and arguments in digital format?
There is another aspect that comes into play with natural evil. Let’s say that we accept that god needed to have things like plate tectonics in existence for life to come about. This means god isn’t omnipotent, but perhaps some theist is willing to give up on that aspect of the monotheistic god (after all, omnipotence is a logically incoherent idea anyway, you could end up with a stronger position by discarding it).
Very well: we have a god who is not pm impotent, and needs to have earthquakes so that life can exist.
But these earthquakes cause untold suffering and death. And they are localized to specific times and areas of the world.
If a god who is not omnipotent cannot PREVENT earthquakes… does that mean that she cannot do anything else about them either?
An easy and loving solution would be to INFORM people about them - so that even if they are still dying, at least they know why. Remove some of the horror and confusion.
Better yet… WARN people before they are about to happen. Or warn people about settling in areas where they are common.
Surely that would be both loving and within the reach of any god we imagine? And yet it does not happen.
That is something a human could do. Imagine how much more a powerful superbeing could do!
Sean Carroll and I claim causality/causation isn't fundamental then how could superdeterminism or determinism be true????
Libertarian free will exist!!!
I watched a handful videos of Dr Ehrman. I find him interesting but having the same message each time. I conclude with this video that it's not his fault. You succeed to break that habit that not him but interviewers have to always ask the same questions.
Leibniz did not mean it that way...he believed that, given the conditions, this is the best that could have been..including as a result of evolution...
Hey, tectonic plates are really, really heavy. God didn't stand a chance.
If everything is in god’s plan and the believer has to just trust the way it is because god intended it in that way for mysterious ways, why would that believer, for example, take their sick child to a doctor? Why trying to find a cure to an illness? Why caring about medicine and medical expertise? If this is the case, the believers should just let thing go in god’s hands…….. right?
We live in a world of secondary causes. We have individual duties and obligations.
@@archie8767 Duties and obligations cannot be demonstrated to actually exist.
@@archie8767 but no god is in the picture.
@Uryvichk I don't believe someone who believes in God should hold to the above. I don't deny your atheistic objection. It's the logical conclusion of atheism.
@@archie8767 oh I agree. Believers never say that. I know. A very close (and dear to me) relative is an evangelical Christian and she prays “oh lord we know you know everything but we are asking you to completely change this in Jesus name” I always ask her the same (and she gets upset for it) why are you trying to change gods’ eternal dispensation of things? Why bother? He knows everything and has disposed everything.
Does the existence of an omniscient god negate free will? If God possesses omniscience, then all events' outcomes are known in advance, suggesting that our choices are predetermined rather than truly free. Moreover, the presence of a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, influencing humans to eat from the tree of knowledge, raises questions about God's role in these events.
The mere knowledge of the outcome of a "free choice" appears to be causally determinative of that choice, which is paradoxical. This suggests you cannot be omniscient if libertarian free will exists, or that libertarian free will doesn't exist (or both, I guess).
'Why does God need a Starship ??'....cheers.
eschatological sounds a lot more like what is sounds like
It is absolutely impossible to do harm to a baby or to a child who has not yet reached the age of reason, especially if his/her parents are of the right religion. The simple fact of sending them to heaven before they can spoil their salvation should be revered. And if you make them suffer before they die, any suffering before salvation is ridiculously small compared with a life in heaven that outlasts every star in the universe and the stars that are not yet born.
Or maybe, just maybe, the very idea of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god is pure idiocy.
So.... given that God supposedly gave us lust, ego, pride, rage, etc. I don't find it too far fetched that He also gave us a brain and wants us to not use it.
Is a mudslide "evil"? Did it do it intentionally, because there were people there? Was Gaia pissed at them for some reason? (Like for polluting the planet beyond habitable levels?) Did the people know that there had been mudslides there in the past, but chose to live there anyway? Shouldn't humans be subject to the same laws of survival as all other animals? Conflating "evil" with "tragedy" is in itself a tragedy...
Sorry, guys, but it is the existence of freewill that constitutes the ability for "evil" to exist. But if you want to use your freewill to ignore that fact, so be it.
I never could see hurricanes, earthquakes, or even cancer as evil. Evil can only be the things humans do to each other or unnecessarily to other species. All of them are tragic, but only the ones that have intention behind them can be actually evil.
Wheres the freewill in no choice but to make a choice. Adam and eve that is. Wheres the freewill in suffering the consequences of what someone else did? Wheres the freewill in faith, not works? The former, dependent on yes, what someone else did or didnt do. the cross) wheres the Justice here?
The free will and absence of evil in haven could perhaps be explained by the purgatory, after which souls don't even consider doing evil. But that's just an ex catholic talking in me.
That doesn’t seem like a solution to me. Why couldn’t god have created a world in which all humans have free will but never consider doing evil from the start? And if he couldn’t do that, then why is a world with free creatures who do evil better than a world with no free creatures at all?
@@moonhouse3540 Good questions, I have no idea. You will have to ask him, which I doubt:)
To the first question, maybe if there is no evil there is no good. Everything would just be normal, and there would be no way to earn your place in haven.
To the second question, maybe it's better for good people. I think the majority of people are good, or at least not evil and they deserve to experience life. It's just usually only bad news on the tv. But then why some good people suffer greatly? Idk.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The more I think about it, the more I find it hard to believe in gods defined by humans.
@@moonhouse3540 Not just that: God could simply have created a world where no being is capable of being affected by evil actions. That is, beings can still contemplate evil, and attempt to do it, they just won't ever succeed. You try to murder someone, the knife just breaks or the gun just jams. You want to verbally abuse someone, you just choke up a little until you have to stop and breathe quietly. You're free to WANT to do those things, you just can't actually do them no matter how bad you want to, much like how I can't fly no matter how bad I want to. People could still be judged for their intentions and attempted actions, without the risk of them actually bringing about harmful results. Surely God could accomplish this.
Why does it have to be so complicated?... I just do stuff!
Bart is such an iluminating scholar to have on the side of reason
Atheist here. Instead of trashing christianity and islam (which we know is false), build a case for what we shouidl believe now. The thouisandsd that die of starvation... what do we do with that?
Believe in regards to what? There's no positive belief an atheist must necessarily hold. Plenty of atheists and atheist/secular humanist communities all over the world are actively working to help the needy.
We start by responding with empathy. Empathy is a finite psychological resource and does not scale but we can at least abandon the "not my problem"/"they deserve their fate"/etc. attitude. Yes, solving starvation in the world is OUR problem, our colective problem as humanity and our individual problem whenever we have the opportunity to do something about it. And the same applies to the other problems of humanity like climate change, racism, sexism, etc.. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who desperately try to reject reality and cling to their biases and in doing so become some of the most vile creatures on earth. We can step by step figure reality out the scientific way but in the meanwhile go and punch some nazis.
@@AlexandruVoda well said 🖖
@@_Omega_Weapon While what you say is true it is worth acknowledging that many people do feel a need for a positive belief. And I believe we should approach this need with empathy. That does not mean that we actually have to provide a replacement constructive belief. Just that approaching people with this need with understanding and consolation and showing a pathway towards feeling that need less is more helpful and productive than dismissing this need. 🖖
If any answer/action/event can be found true without God then there is no absolute God that is the answer to everything! If evil/death/suffering exists it's because God allows it to
God is love, now GIVE HIM YOUR FORESKIN
Iesus radit, sed solum crura !!
THE REASON EVIL EXISTS IS TO MAXIMIZE THE WHOLE COSMOS’ TOTAL SUM GOODNESS. SUPPOSE WE RANK POSSIBLE WORLDS FROM BEST TO WORST. EVEN AFTER CREATING THE BEST, ONE SHOULD CREATE THE SECOND-BEST, BECAUSE IT STILL CONTAINS SOME BEAUTY AND HAPPINESS. THEN CONTINUE THROUGH THE SERIES, CREATING EACH UNTIL REACHING THOSE WHERE WICKEDNESS AND SUFFERING OUTWEIGH GOOD. SOME WORLDS WILL INCLUDE MUCH INIQUITY BUT STILL BE GOOD ON NET. THIS IS ONE SUCH.
That's the exact type of argument I'd expect from a guy who doesn't know how to deactivate caps lock
Why not do the perfect world infinite times?
@@juanausensi499Is mercy good?
@@archie8767 Mercy as a opposed to violence, yes. Mercy as a opposed to justice, no.
@@juanausensi499 May violence be a part of justice?