Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 29, 2024, 08:47 (266 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You therefore believe that your God individually designed and culled the vast majority of dinosaurs although they had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food. And you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his goal.

DAVID: Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?

You don’t. But you should be able to find some kind of reason for believing in the ideas you try to insert into your God’s mind, e.g. your fixed belief that he only wanted us and our food and therefore messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species (e.g. dinosaurs) that had nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: How much the twigs [referring to dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.”

“Automatic” turned out to be a misprint for “autonomous”.

dhw: The “twigs” include the vast majority of dinosaur species which had no connection with your God’s sole purpose, and you say they may have "come from" a degree of "autonomous experimentation". This suggests that the twigs (= species of dinosaur) may be the result of experimentation by the dinosaurs themselves. What else could it mean?

DAVID: At the level of speciation God does it.

So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

dhw: The issue is we don’t know whether God wants us to worship him or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the words themselves mean. “Allegorical” does not mean “is the proposal right or wrong?”

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

DAVID: Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

dhw: I have no objection to YOUR humanized vision of a God who wants to be recognized and worshipped, and who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or to your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Perfectly feasible. But if you were taught that he wants us to worship him etc., which means he is selfless, and that “allegorical” means either right or wrong, and that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because you can't understand why he would adopt the method and purpose you impose on him, I would suggest that perhaps it’s time you stopped relying on your teachers.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.