In this debate at Gordon College on Thursday, November 11, 2010, Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman debate the topic of: Theodicy, God and Suffering. Did Ehrman's objections carry weight? Did D'Souza provide adequate answers?
Original video can be found here.
Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 42min)
Enjoy.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Dinesh D'Souza vs Bart Ehrman: Theodicy, God & Suffering
Topics:
Bart Ehrman
,
debate
,
Dinesh D'Souza
,
Problem of Evil
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(372)
-
▼
June
(31)
- World Religions Index
- Person-Sensitive Apologetics MP3 Audio by Brian Auten
- Author Interview: David Lamb - God Behaving Badly
- Sunday Quote: F.F. Bruce on the New Testament Canon
- DVD Review: Metamorphosis
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (06/17 - 06/24)
- 350+ Lectures on Science and Religion
- Top 16 Apologetics Podcasts Updated
- Can Atheists Live Without God? by Norman Geisler MP3
- Apologist Interview: David Robertson
- Sunday Quote: F.F. Bruce on the Christ Myth
- Apologetics Video Clips for Small Groups
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (06/10 - 06/17)
- Kindle 3G Summer Giveaway!
- Debates on Islam and Christianity
- Slavery in the Bible: 8 Quick Resources
- Welcome to Apologetics 315
- Interview: Marcia Montenegro (former astrologer)
- Sunday Quote: Stephen T. Davis on Apologetics
- Apologetics By Any Other Name
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (06/03 - 06/10)
- Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio
- Audio on Cults by the Centers for Apologetics Rese...
- Dinesh D'Souza vs Bart Ehrman: Theodicy, God & Suf...
- Apologist Interview: Stephen Bedard
- Sunday Quote: David K. Clark on Speaking the Truth
- Book Review: The 10 Most Important Things You Can ...
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/27- 06/03)
- Fallacy Friday: Affirming the Consequent
- Christian Answers for the New Age
- Featured Resource: Hope's Reason Apologetics Journal
-
▼
June
(31)
9 comments :
Bart seemed like he had more of an emotional barrier than an intellectual one. Dinesh could've explained the reason for natural evil in more detail.
@irrelevantaxiom, I agree. Bart usually is a bit more emotional when it comes to debates rather than presenting the facts. Especially in his debates with Licona, these were probably some of Ehrman's worst moments. As for D'Souza, he is good in a way of presenting an overview of things, such as if the topic were, "Is there evidence for God?" D'Souza would be great and even in the presentation for something. But, I honestly butt heads with his explanation for evil...I think it is elementary and insufficient, though...I think the Christian position is the best explanation (personally...the only explanation) for such an event.
I could not believe Bart's commendation of Job's friends as suitable sources of support! Honestly, sitting quietly for a few days in "support," then accusing Job of crimes and misdemeanors suitable for his misfortunes! No wonder Job called them "miserable comforters." (Job 16:2).
Is this what Ehrman prefers to the hopes of heaven?
I can't believe being on the Colbert Report is now worthy to be mentioned as part of the debaters' CV.
I also get sick of Ehrman's constant beginning point of, "I was a Christian like most of you, and now I'm not dumb like you." Who cares, Bart? That's irrelevant to anything having to do with the debate.
Ehrman: "Hitler was an oversized mouse." - huh?
Bart sounds like an old hellfire preacher. I keep thinking, "Quit screaming at me Bart!" Maybe he should switch to decaf. :)
I thought the line of the debate came when they were talking about heaven. Dinesh has a kind of teacher's sigh that seemed to say, "How do I explain this another way?" then explained how the onus was on Ehrman to disprove hell rather than on him to prove it.
Ehrman responded, "Now you're just intellectualizing the issue."
And Dinesh brought down the house with, "Uhh, that's why we're having a debate."
That seemed to sum up the whole thing for me.
In his closing statements, Dr. Ehrman said speaking of life "...it's a gift, and it won't be with us for long." Interesting. If life is a gift, wouldn't that imply a gift giver? Perhaps this isn't a difficult concept for a self professed agnostic.
If any are interested, Cornelius Van Til has prepared an extensive overview of this question for apologetical purposes in an extended article, Evil and Theodicy, available for free as a .pdf. He has always impressed me as a careful and thorough biblical reviewer for any matter he takes under consideration; certainly, you will have plenty to "chew on" if you step into his reflective circle on this or any other matter... Bon Appetit!
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.