autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 30, 2018, 12:51 (2428 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But you do have certainty. You are certain not only that God exists, but that his one and only purpose was to produce the human brain. (Your one and only secondary purpose called “balance of nature” turns out to be the claim that the whole history of changing balances has been geared to the production of the human brain.)[…] You are certain that your God is in full control, except when maybe he is not (see bad bacteria and viruses). And you are certain that God did not design a mechanism to give cells/cell communities the autonomous means to cope with their environment, though he does give them a degree of freedom but not without help and guidelines, which is the opposite of autonomy. Nobody on this planet can provide any degree of exactitude about how our reality came into existence. That is why I am so uncertain. And that is why I point out what I see as the inconsistencies in your certainties, and have the temerity to suggest alternatives, which you reject as if you could be certain they are wrong!

DAVID: You have given a very clear disposition of your point of view. You are again declaring your need for exactitude: "Nobody on this planet can provide any degree of exactitude about how our reality came into existence." But we who have come to believe can reach conclusions that satisfy us as being reasonable and believable. You see your "inconsistencies" and muddle along, which of course is the right thing for you.

They are not “my” inconsistencies. They are yours. See under “whales and hippos” for a prime example. I am trying to unravel your “muddle” by offering “reasonable and believable” theistic alternatives, but you refuse even to consider them.

DAVID: It must be obvious to you that I am content with my conclusions, as far as I can take them as I stick my nose into God's business. I have no evidence He is totally benign in his methods. We have the problem of evil (theodicy) and you are aware I've covered my answer to it here and in my books. Your major division with me in thought is design. I have presented here a multitude of examples of the complexity of the biochemistry of life, one such yesterday. For me it is absolute evidence that a designing mind is required, and is the prime starting point for my series of conclusions.

Theodicy has never been an issue between us, and my major point of AGREEMENT with you is on design! I have never argued against it, and it is a prime reason for my not accepting atheism. Nor have I ever attempted in these discussions to challenge your faith in your God. On the contrary, my arguments always include the possibility that your God exists. They challenge your interpretation of your God’s intentions, in particular with regard to the history of evolution, and on this thread the subject is whether your God controlled every natural wonder and lifestyle on the way to the human brain, or sacrificed control and allowed organisms autonomy (with the option of an occasional dabble). I don’t know why you feel obliged to keep changing the subject.