The Human Question

This otherwise brilliant rhetorician says something pretty stupid in his debate with D'Souza. When trying to argue against D'Souza's claim that even human evil shows something exceptional about human nature, Ehrman says that human torture is just a bigger version of what his pet cat does. A human engaging in torture is blameworthy: a cat playing with a mouse is not.  You can't get from one to the other merely by making the other bigger, more complex, etc.  Otherwise we shouldn't blame Hitlerlike behavior: it's just a result of how would-be Hitlers are wired (just as the same is true for cats).

D'Souza and Ehrman both make excellent points and give good rebuttals.  And I certainly found fault with Ehrman's brilliant but post-evangelical approach to philosophical questions.  But for the moment I'll point out how D'Souza could have done better. When Ehrman asked "where is God when there is suffering without relief?" one of the answers that should have been given is that God is present in creation even in those situations.  Otherwise, the impression is given that God is present only when performing miracles.  Given such an assumption, the choice for a theists would be between something like deism (inasmuch as God would often seem to be non-provident) and hyper-supernaturalism (God's always doing miracles... which does not seem to be obviously true). Another point that D'Souza makes (and is a good one) is skillfully turned in a different direction by Ehrman.  D'Souza argues that human evil outstrips Darwinian necessity.  Good point, provi...