Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 01, 2024, 19:06 (206 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I start with an allegorical God as described by the three Western monotheistic religions.

dhw: If your God is an “allegory”, he is a fictional symbol. I thought you and other monotheists regarded him as a real being.

DAVID: Real and allegorical. You still don't know how to think about God!

dhw: Nobody knows how to think about God. Stop pretending that you do.

Adler gives a concise view of how to do it. Humans have created a huge compendium of intellectual essays in pursuit of the subject. Take Thomism, which I have studied, as a prime basic example. I find a respect much of his views.

DAVID: I struggle with God's personal attributes knowing He may have none of a humankind. All of the attributes I've presented are 'maybes'. They may simply be human desires for Him to have. The Hebrew God was fierce and directive, The NT had Him as loving, and the Quran presents a God of great works. Humans simply invent the God they want. […] (dhw's bold)

dhw: You have agreed that your God might have human thought patterns and emotions, but only your contradictory humanizations are OK […], whereas my non-contradictory humanizations are unthinkable. More double standards.

DAVID: Yes! You are using no standards of how to think about God as I do. Adler taught me from scratch. Your humanizing approach is not acceptable. I am using standards of which you are totally unaware.

dhw: You have just told us that all your “attributes” are “maybes”, and humans invent the God they want. If Adler taught you that you can invent any God you want, then there are no “standards” for you except your own. You have chosen to invent a God with a series of “maybes” that are riddled with contradictions, as illustrated by your belief in your God’s inefficient design of evolution. And I am as entitled as you are to suggest "maybes".

I view God from aspects you do not seem to understand. Adler taught 'how to think about God with standards'. The God I have chosen fits those standards. My view of God's conduct of evolution isn't riddled with contradictions. God ran evolution to produce humans. My view is an example of yours: Direct creation is much more direct and efficient. Does that make the nebulous 'contradictions' more palatable?

DAVID: Again, your nonsensical complaint God should not have evolved us. We evolved, and for me God did the evolutionary design just as He wished. That is my idea as to 'why'. Why can't you understand that? But I do know the answer: you don't know how to think about God as theologians do.

dhw: If God exists, I fully accept that he used evolution to fulfil whatever his purpose may have been. I do not accept that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have specially designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose. Even you ridicule your own theory as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And have your theologians taught you that you can invent any God you wish, but dhw is forbidden to invent alternatives?

Considering your illogical distortion of evolutionary statistics, it is no surprise to meet your very humanized forms of possible Gods.

DAVID: Your inability to think about God as theologians do creates all sort of problems for your ability to discuss God's attributes.

DAVID (under “Boredom and theodicy”): No one can be certain about God’s attributes.

dhw: No one includes you and your theologians. We all offer “maybes”. I shan’t reproduce the list of blatant contradictions in your maybes (see “More Miscellany” for examples), but they “create all sorts of problems for your ability to discuss God’s attributes”. These arise out of the fact that you “first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And you admit that these beliefs (apart from your belief in your God’s existence, with arguments which as an agnostic I fully accept as reasonable) are based on irrational faith. May I suggest that in our discussions, you focus on the arguments instead of pretending that you and your theologians know how to think about God even though no one can be certain about his attributes.

See above. Theologians and philosophers of religion have produced guidelines to thoughts about God. To them He is real. I follow those guidelines. I have assumed you either do not know that line of thought or choose to ignore it.