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

by David Turell , Thursday, July 04, 2024, 16:00 (65 days ago) @ dhw

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

hw: We are only interested in whether God does or does not want us to worship (= love, respect, thank) him. It is not a matter of whether he thinks the word has a different meaning!

You still don't understand. Human words may not have the same meaning when applied to God. God probably thinks in His own language. Undoubtedly, He understands our language. See below.

DAVID: 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: I can only comment on what you tell us Adler says. If he says God may or may not love us, his statement is perfectly clear, and I would support it (if God exists). If he says the word “love” or the word “worship” may have some moral or hidden meaning beyond what we mean by it, then as a human being I can only say who cares? We only want to know if he loves us/wants us to worship him etc. in accordance with our definition of the words we invented, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition.

How God responds to us is up to God. You are correct, we want a relationship in our terms. But His response is totally up to Him, beyond our control, and beyond the meaning of our words.

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.

DAVID: Yes, in this level of discussion I am [Jekyll] and Hyde.

dhw: I’m relieved and indeed pleased that you have accepted my diagnosis without any reservations. It explains your mass of contradictions, but now the question is whether you will open your mind to the possibility that these contradictions might mean that some of your wishful thinking might be wrong, since your inner Jekyll and Hyde keep lumbering you with totally opposite theories, all of which you say you believe in.

You miss the point. As a believer in God, I fully accept what He does as showing His purpose. As a philosopher of religion, like my guide from Adler, I see His use of evolution as a cumbersome choice. But we arrived, so why complain?