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

by dhw, Thursday, May 02, 2024, 11:47 (203 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining the two "theory" threads.

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: It is therefore patently absurd to argue that the extinct 99.9% “produced” the current 0.1%. We and our food are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived extinction (or what you call your God’s “culling”). Example: a tiny proportion of dinosaurs led to birds. The rest did not lead to any life forms now on Earth.

DAVID: Nuts!! The entire statistical pattern is simple! The 0.1% living are direct descendants of the 99.9%, which went extinct.

Above we are NOT directly descended from 99.9%, and now we are. The contradiction could hardly be more blatant. I’m combining the two evolution threads to form a coherent pattern. We have four starting points: 1) You say that I “don’t know how to think about God.” 2) DAVID to me: “Your inability to think about God as theologians do creates all sort of problems for your ability to discuss God’s attributes. 3) DAVID: “Humans simply invent the God they want. 4) DAVID: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

This is the root cause of all your contradictions. If theologians have taught you to invent the God you want, and that is your starting point, you will inevitably try to twist the real world and its history into patterns that fit your preconceived plan. That is why, in your own words, you “struggle with God’s personal attributes knowing He may have none of a human kind” but also knowing that he “probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.” Herewith more of what follows your wishful starting points:

You want humans to be your God’s one and only purpose, and you want him to be the designer of every species, and so you fight tooth and nail to avoid explaining why he would messily and inefficiently design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. See the above contradiction as one example of the mess you get into.

You want your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all good, and so you come up against the problem of theodicy. First of all, you say it isn’t a problem because there’s more good than bad, then you have your God allowing human evil but deliberately creating bad bugs (you blame him, but refuse to tell us why you blame him) in order to avoid getting bored, but this contradicts your wish for him to be selfless and to be all-good. At other times, he just can’t control the bugs (so that contradicts your wish for him to be all-powerful). (For more examples, see "More Miscellany".)

And all this time, you blame me for not knowing how theologians think about God. Today you write:

DAVID: 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.

Yes indeed. And you can pick and choose those theologians you like and pooh-pooh those you don’t. There is no ONE way to think about God, but you have settled on the view that you can invent whatever God you like, and the rest will follow. Straight into one big mess of contradictions.

You try to dodge these 1) by pretending that my criticisms stem from my agnosticism, but all our disagreements are based on your God’s possible purposes, methods and nature, not on the question of his existence, concerning which I remain neutral. 2) By attacking my alternative interpretations of evolution as “humanizations”. See the quote above concerning your “struggle with God’s personal attributes”. 3) By constantly leaving out those parts of your theories which render them illogical (e.g. the 99.9% of irrelevant species, and the fact that you blame your God for the murderous bugs, and your own guesses such as your God’s desire to be worshipped, which conflicts with your guess that he is selfless).

You have honestly admitted that your theories ultimately are based on irrational faith, and that is something I can accept. I can offer theories, but I have no belief. Someone’s irrational faith in one theory or another must be the truth, and so one way or another, I am wrong. However, if you wish to enter into a debate about your God’s purposes, methods and nature, I would suggest that an analysis of life’s history might provide a more convincing, less self-contradictory starting point than an attempt to fit the history into your preconceived wishes.

(Re double standards, see “More miscellany”.)