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

by dhw, Monday, June 03, 2024, 08:31 (97 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So let’s spell it out once and for all, taking worship as our example: when you said your God might want us to worship him, the answer did not depend on what meaning the word “worship” has for God, but on whether the statement does or does not apply to him – i.e. does he or does he not want us to worship him? Your self-contradictory answer is that although you think he might want us to worship him, he can’t want us to worship him because he has no self-interest.

DAVID: To clear the point: When God produced us it was not out of a wish that we worship Him. Adler's 50/50 applies here as a neutral opinion.

Wanting to be worshipped was one of several possible reasons YOU suggested (e.g. recognition, forming a relationship, ruling the world) were others. Adler’s 50/50 = possibly yes, possibly no. Not a 100% rejection of your own proposal through your insistence that your God has no self-interest. You have defied your mentor Adler.

DAVID: The rules to think about God are specific from Adler. […]

dhw: Listen to yourself: “Everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in.”
“There are as many forms of God as people invent him.”
(Re other theologians’ views of God:) “Their God is not my God as I describe him.”

DAVID: They are Adler's rules which I must assume cover other theologians.

Why “must” you make such an assumption when you acknowledge that there are as many forms of God as people that invent them – including you with your wacky theories that apparently Adler doesn’t even mention?

DAVID: […] Some of us follow Adler. What others think about God is of no consequence.

dhw: So all the millions of priests and bishops and imams and congregations past and present who believe God wants them to worship him are of no consequence!

DAVID: Interpret properly! Of no consequence to me.

You moan at me for introducing theories linked to deism and process theology on the grounds that they are not “mainstream” theology, though mainstream theology is of no consequence to you. And you transform your mentor Adler’s 50/50 possibilities into 100% rejections.

Evolution
DAVID: […] Everything in creation is God's work. Therefore, He evolved us by that cumbersome method we see. It was His choice to do it that way for His own reasons. Makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

dhw: It makes perfect sense if you leave out the problem which causes you to ridicule his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient: namely your theory that humans plus food were his one and only goal from the start, and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. And you can’t think of any reason why. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: Again, your distorted way of analyzing evolution by God. The unusual human endpoint is pure evidence of God's intent as creator using an evolutionary method.

dhw: If God exists, the whole history of life is pure evidence that he used an evolutionary method. It is not pure evidence of the totally illogical theory bolded above. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: You are the dodger by creating a false analysis of Raup's statistics.

Nothing whatsoever to do with Raup’s statistics, which you tell us are that 99.9% of species have not survived. His “analysis” is that this is due to changing conditions leading to extinctions, which are necessary if evolution is to produce new species, and survival depends on luck. I accept this analysis. You admit that he does NOT tell us God was obeying some law that in order for him to produce us, he must specially design the 99.9% of species irrelevant to us. Stop distorting Raup.

Plate tectonics

DAVID: Gould said our arrival depended upon contingencies. Plate tectonics is a major one.

dhw: This seems to fit in with Raup’s contention that whichever species survived new conditions or resulted from new conditions was a matter of luck.

DAVID: Yes.

And therefore not your God’s design.So stop distorting Raup.

DAVID: I've produced recent studies on the human brain. Do you see them as a natural event? Try seeing it through your distaste of human exceptionalism.

dhw: I have no distaste whatsoever for human exceptionalism. Every single natural wonder that you report can be seen as evidence of design – as you never cease to point out. But that does not explain the theory bolded above, with which you ridicule your God’s messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency rather than asking yourself whether perhaps he might have had a different reason for choosing evolution as his method.

DAVID: Your alternative views of God's evolution turn it into a goal-less free-for-all for God's entertainment.

You keep repeating this mantra. 1) I have rejected the superficial term “entertainment”, in favour of your own words “enjoyment” and “interest”; 2) the free-for-all is one of three theistic alternatives that I offer, and 3) none of my alternatives are “goal-less”. Your distortions of my alternatives do not in any way answer my criticisms of your illogical theory, which is a direct insult to the God you consider to be all-powerful and all-knowing, but messy, cumbersome and inefficient.