autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 09, 2018, 12:49 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But you keep acknowledging that you don’t know WHY your always-in-control God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose in this roundabout way,

DAVID: 'Roundabout' is your human interpretation. Perhaps it is necessary. I accept God's works at face value: this is what He wanted

How do you know what he wanted? That is YOUR human interpretation, as is the whole of your hypothesis and your refusal to consider other hypothesis on the grounds that God’s logic is different from ours. Again, how do you know?

dhw: You show little reluctance to define your God as a universal consciousness who created life with the sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens so that his works could be studied, he could have a relationship with us, and could watch us with interest.

DAVID: That is as far as I've ever gone in presupposing His motives. Might not be correct.

Of course your “humanizing” hypothesis might not be correct. My different explanations might not be correct either. I simply object to your dismissal of mine on the grounds that they are “humanizing”, while you offer “humanizing” explanations of your own. If God exists, we don’t know to what extent we reflect the characteristics of our maker, and it is an insult to human intelligence to dismiss logical explanations of his motives and methods, and to embrace illogical ones, solely on the grounds that he MIGHT not think like us.

dhw: Questioning the logic of your hypothesis does not mean humanizing. Suggesting that your God created the initial mechanism and left organisms to work out their own solutions, is not humanizing.

DAVID: Agreed. That theory of yours is not humanizing. No motives involved.

Thank you. Then perhaps I can persuade you to stop hiding behind the “humanizing” smokescreen and to use your considerable human intelligence in discussing the logic of the different hypotheses.

DAVID: More human damage to balance of nature, Removing dams restores balance along rivers:
http://nautil.us/issue/57/communities/how-the-elwha-river-was-saved?utm_source=Nautilus...

DAVID’s comment: Same story as work in the Yellowstone Park. Balance maintains life.

Yes, yes, humans can change the balance of nature, and the ever changing balance can maintain some forms of life while others die out, as has been the case throughout the history of life before humans ever walked the earth. By all means castigate humans for their interference, and praise them when they restore what we consider to be a better balance, but please don’t pretend this justifies your belief that God designed the weaverbird’s nest and every other natural wonder in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum