Chapter One
Is God Immoral Because He Allows Suffering?
Bart Ehrman’s Problem
As mentioned, Bart Ehrman is an expert in the study of ancient biblical manuscripts. He has a great deal of experience in the exploration of early Christianity, and his knowledge of the New Testament is considerable. But Ehrman is not a philosopher or a theologian. His lack of expertise in these fields becomes increasingly apparent in his book God’s Problem, where Ehrman explains the reason he ultimately gave up on Christianity.
At times Ehrman’s honesty is refreshing. He admits he sometimes wakes up at night sweating at the prospect that he is wrong and hell is real. He also displays, at least for a biblical scholar, a good sense of humor (we are not normally known for this particular quality).
Also, it is commendable that Ehrman interacts so much with the biblical material. We wish popular Christian authors would learn from his example (though we hope they would take a different approach). Bart Ehrman takes the Bible seriously. He just doesn’t believe most of what it says.
Though we disagree with many of Ehrman’s arguments, we respect him as a man—God’s image bearer—and can appreciate and even agree with some of his conclusions. When we meet, and two of us have shared events with him, the meeting is cordial and engaging. Acting in love and respect is what image bearers of God are called to do with others who bear his image.
But here is a point that should not be overlooked: though Ehrman doesn’t believe in God, he has reciprocated with kindness toward us. Why? In one sense the answer is fairly simple: Ehrman has morals. You can see it in the way he argues against God’s existence. For instance, he writes, “Others, of course, refuse to believe in a God who is determined to exterminate the people he created because he disapproves of how they behave.”
He also writes, “I came to believe that there is not a God who is intent on roasting innocent children and others in hell because they didn’t happen to accept a certain religious creed.” Or consider what he advocates people should do in light of evil and suffering: “But we should also work hard to make our world the most pleasing place it can be for others. . . . What we have in the here and now is all that there is. We need to live life to its fullest and help others as well to enjoy the fruits of the land.”
So, according to Ehrman, we should help others. Who would want to argue with him here? But here is the problem: Ehrman never explains, in light of his worldview, why humans should try to relieve suffering in other humans. He makes a forceful case that the God of the Bible is wrong on account of his actions (or lack thereof) in the face of egregious evil and suffering, but he never explains the basis for his moral outrage.
The more Ehrman builds his case against God based on morality, and the more he urges people to help others, the more the problem surfaces: Where is Ehrman getting his morality? Who decides what is right and wrong? If Ehrman were to say it is up to a given society to determine its morality, it would seem to follow that when Nazi Germany decided it was right to kill millions of Jews or when a society decides it is right to abuse women or kill babies with disabilities to protect the gene pool, then these things are right, at least for these groups of people, and there is no higher court of appeal. Most will find this logic unsatisfying. In any case it is unlikely that Ehrman would make such a claim since he discusses the evils of the Holocaust.
So if society does not decide what is good and what is evil, who decides what is right and wrong? Perhaps Ehrman might reply that right or wrong is whatever is most helpful for the majority of the human race. However, why should one who believes that this world is all we have care about the human race at large? If there is no God, and we live in a strictly material, evolving universe, violence and suffering are just part of the natural world with no inherent morality attached to them. In this case violence would not be evil; it would simply be part of the evolutionary process.
If so, why should we seek to eliminate suffering and violence? If all we are is a collection of physical matter and all we have is this life, why should Ehrman care about people he doesn’t even know who are dying of AIDS in Africa? Or, for that matter, why should he care if people whom he does know are suffering? Those who believe in God argue that we should care because God created us to care and commanded that we love others. But without God, compassion for others is nothing but chemical changes in the brain. Suffering is meaningless. Violence is meaningless. All is meaningless! Ed Budziszewski describes the problem when God’s existence is denied from his own personal experience:
Without God, Ehrman has no grounding for his morality. What is more, if one responds to the question, “Who decides what is right and wrong?” with “Right is what is most helpful to the human race,” this only leads to something akin to the initial question. After all, what is most helpful for the human race? Hitler and a whole list of others would disagree with Ehrman on what is best for the human race. Is the murder of old people good for the human race as a whole? Is the killing of children with disabilities good for the human race in general?
So we are back to the question: Who decides what is right and wrong? Apparently, at least in his world, Ehrman himself gets to decide what is right and wrong. And Ehrman ultimately decides that God’s got a problem! But Ehrman has never told us where he gets his notion of right and wrong. Regardless of whether God has a problem, one thing is clear: Bart Ehrman has a problem. Without God, Ehrman ha...
