Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, November 16, 2009, 17:27 (5269 days ago) @ Frank Paris

FRANK: "All I see is a persistent resistance against coming to grips with what I'm trying to get at, repeating the same difficulties over and over again, regardless of how many attempts I make to put it into different words."-I hesitate to continue this discussion, as my comments have clearly offended you, but you have once again gone to a great deal of trouble to explain your ideas, and this persuades me that you have not given up hope of getting them across to me. I'm sorry if you felt that one of my statements seemed like "mud slinging" and am even sorrier that you think my resistance is due to my own "basic assumptions". Perhaps I need to make it clear that I assume nothing on the subject of God's existence/non-existence/nature, and when confronted by other people's beliefs or non-beliefs, I can only comment on the arguments they put to me. Are they consistent, coherent, and intellectually satisfying (to use your own criteria)? On various occasions in your posts I've stumbled over statements which you have later modified. Please bear in mind that I have nothing else to go on except these statements, and it's only by querying them that I can come to a clearer understanding of what you're trying to say. -In this latest post, there are two further examples. I have several times quoted what I took to be your belief that life and the codes of evolution came about "by accident" (linked to your earlier statement that God did not have the conscious ability to create genetic codes). You have now refined this ("we don't know whether in our universe life came into being by accident..."), and have clarified your meaning in greater detail. This is helpful.-The second instance is related to the same subject. On 10 November at 17.33 I wrote: "You propose a loving God who wants to see his own reflection in the universe. Others might argue that if he deliberately designed life as it is, he's responsible for the suffering of all living creatures. That's what I took to be the originality of your thesis: God didn't make us, so he's not responsible." 
You replied: "It's not all that original. It's a main theme in the process theology from Whitehead to Griffin." 
This gave me the impression that you accepted the thesis. 
On 15 November I wrote: "Your own solution to this theological problem [i.e. of evil and suffering] is that life on Earth (the only kind we know anything about) came into being by accident, which means God was not responsible and has no control. I am questioning this thesis." 
You now write: "I would question that thesis also, and I'm certainly not making it in the naïve way you're expressing it." 
This removes an important obstacle to my understanding of your ideas. You then go on to give an interesting and coherent explanation of why you question the thesis. I hope that through this example you can see how our misunderstandings arise, and why further clarification is sometimes necessary. -We may come back to the struggle between good and evil, but I'm anxious to post this in order to clear the air between us. Besides, it may well be that your discussions with David, a fellow panentheist, will provide a smoother passage than my perhaps too confrontational approach.