(Un)reasonable? Dean Zimmerman and Gideon Rosen Discuss Faith and Reason at Rutgers

www.veritas.org... - Where does morality come from? Isn't science rapidly approaching a complete explanation of nature? Do you ever have doubts about your views?
Full library available AD FREE at www.veritas.org....
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!

[@Mentat1231]

I think Dean Zimmerman is a great philosopher and I agree with much of what he's written (especially about Open Theism). I just wish he had even the barest clue as to what the Bible actually teaches about why God permits suffering. It would have really helped him in this discussion. I mean, he marshalled the philosophical rebuttals just fine, and they do indeed show that an all-loving God is not incompatible with the natural and moral evils in the world. But just showing something to be logically coherent doesn't really give a lot of comfort or explanation, which is what people want on the issue of suffering. The Bible has a very clear and good explanation of why God has permitted suffering, so Christians need not content themselves with merely showing that the situation is logically possible or with making up theodicies that may or may not be true.

[@manifesto2000]

How about making your case for what the Bible is saying on this?

[@Mentat1231]

Alan Blanes
I worry that I would spend a great deal of time typing out the full explanation, and then no one would read it (CZcams comments aren't meant to be treatises). So, I'll state it in brief, and then you can feel free to ask me any questions you have:
God created human beings perfect, and with the prospect of everlasting life. He gave them a paradisaic home, meaningful work, and He communicated with them and had a close relationship with them. He gave them one prohibition, and lovingly warned them about the consequences of disobedience. But Satan freely chose to tell Eve that God had lied and was withholding something good from them. The issue of God's right to rule was thus rasied. She freely chose to believe him instead of the One who had given her everything, and so she sinned. Her husband also sinned. (Gensis 3:1-6). God could have destroyed them there, but the issue needed resolving so that it would never come up again. Is God's way of ruling right, or are we better off ruling ourselves under Satan's influence? We have the past several millenia to see the answer to that clearly (Ecclesiastes 8:9; Jeremiah 10:23). Moreover, since Adam and Eve lost perfection, we (as their offspring) are likewise imperfect and dying (Romans 5:12). So, God created a way by which we could get back what Adam and Eve lost, and He intends to bring this about by means of the ransom, and a Kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15 prophesied this right from the get-go, but the fulfillment is pointed to throughout the Bible: e.g.: Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 9:6, 7; Matthew 20:28; John 3:16). Jesus will destroy Satan and other wicked people (John 12:31; 1 John 3:8) and restore the Earth to the way it was meant to be, with a perfect, everlasting human race living on it (Revelation 21:3, 4; Psalm 37:10, 11, 29).
Now, that's a *very* rough sketch, and there are a lot of details to explain (like *why* Jesus dying has anything to do with our gaining life, or *when* the Kingdom was established in heaven...). These things all have Scriptural answers, but I thought I should stick to the sketch. And I don't think Zimmerman needed to go into all of this, but it wouldn't hurt to say something like "actually, the Bible teaches that sin, death, and suffering are all temporary things; parts of Satan's world which is going to be done away with soon, but which was permitted for the issue of Universal Sovereignty to be settled to our everlasting benefit". Or something like that. ;-)

[@manifesto2000]

Mentat1231 Thanks very much for the response. I am a very lapsed Catholic, who is very glad the Pope Francis has embraced evolution, and I am wondering what was the empirical premise that would ever have created a reasoned acceptance of the notion that any creature could have been made perfect? By what rationality could any creed make the assumption that any creature could have been materialized without all the developmental processes necessary to get to the place where an advanced creature could exist? How can anyone, in the face of all that is known about the developmental history of the making of elements and the cosmos, and the history of speciation on Earth - still have any willingness to accept the idea that G-d started out with perfection?

[@Mentat1231]

Alan Blanes
For what it's worth, it is not a Biblical teaching that all the animals started out perfect, or even that God specifically created each species. Variation is clearly going on in the history of the world. I do, personally, tend to think that people like Doug Axe, Stephen Meyer, and Michael Behe have some very good points, so I would favor a sort of "Intelligent Design" view. But there's no doubt that variation occurs, and that animals were not created in some special "perfect" state (not even sure what that would mean for an animal; they are what they are). It is only in the case of humans that the Bible talks of perfection and then lapsing from it.

[@manifesto2000]

Mentat1231 Which begs the question: "How did humans develop the notion that a certain gradation of hominid has been bestowed some miraculous level of grace, that they could skip all the developmental processes that lead to our current species?"
As it appears to me, the human tendency toward exceptionalism has lead to many problems like abuse of other species, and imperiling the ecology. I am hopeful that people who want to see humans reach their potential for good will participate in the Pyramid 2030 project, and band together with other parts of this network (launched at the Rio+20 conference in 2012), and see what we can achieve over the next 16 years.
I sense that G-d would not object.

[@Tredoslop]

Dean Zimmerman is actually a Christian.

[@madenew000]

ok...thank you

[@xenoranger79]

The problem with a deity that always intervenes is that it infringes upon free will & personal growth. If a person is intent to hurt another, naturally they can carry it out until an opposing force stops them. Others have free will to stop these actions.
In the case of natural evils (cancer), should the deity intervene apathy can set in. Instead of caring for the afflicted, people will just assume that the deity will tend to the sick and stop comforting them preventing personal growth.