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

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 03, 2024, 18:10 (141 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Still sticking to a classical use of allegory.

dhw: You gave us the definition:”containing a moral or hidden meaning”. What possible moral or hidden meaning can there be in the word “worship”?

'Hidden meaning' simply tells us our understanding of the word 'worship' is clear to us but how it applies to God is unknown.

DAVID: Yes, He MAY want us to "love, respect, thank him, etc." in a Godly way, and He MAY NOT as Adler points out.

dhw: What do you mean by “in a Godly way”? We invented the word, and we don’t know if he does or doesn’t want us to do what we mean when we use the word “worship”. I agree with Adler’s “may or may not”. You don’t, because wanting to be loved, respected, praised etc. is an attribute your God would have in common with humans, and you say God is certainly not human in any way. So you disagree with Adler – or you are misrepresenting Adler.

I am not distorting Adler. He specifically says use the words as applied to God with allegorical meaning showing we do not know how the words really apply to God.

dhw: Under “microbes in trees”, you defend his design of bad microbes by calling him “benevolent”. We don’t know if God loves us, and yet you know he’s benevolent, without any “allegorical” nonsense. How do you know he’s benevolent, if he’s certainly not human in any way and we don’t know if he loves us? The question is not what the terms mean to God, but whether they apply to him - as you keep agreeing, and then trying to disagree, with one contradiction after another.(David’s bold)

DAVID: God is an unknown entity as we try to relate to Him.

Agreed.

DAVID: Note the bold just above with which I agree. I can call Him benevolent from my religious feelings, but an analytical philosophic view says I don't know He is benevolent. A bit schizophrenic on my part, as I believe at two levels. Religiously and analytically.

dhw: You’re the doctor. I find this confession quite moving, as it’s the first time you’ve acknowledged the massive split which is so evident from your long list of contradictions and which for some reason you have always tried to blame on me! But I would suggest that you believe and you don’t believe at two levels. You diagnosed the problem some time ago, when you confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You wish to believe that your God is benevolent. That is your emotional, religious self. “The rest follows” in the form of an irreconcilable conflict, as you frantically try to rationalize your religious belief, swinging to ridiculous extremes: God is benevolent, but we don’t know if God is benevolent, and God can’t possibly be benevolent because although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he cannot possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, but he is benevolent. Your reason undermines your preconceptions, but you will only accept what you wished for in the first place. I shan’t try to explain why you wish for an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because I’m sure you can work out the sad truth for yourself. (But see “Offshoot from giraffes" on the “More Miscellany” thread.) Thank you for your honest self-analysis, which I hope will provide a reference point for future discussions.

Yes, in this level of discussion I am Jeckyl and Hyde.