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

by David Turell , Friday, July 05, 2024, 19:30 (64 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You still don’t understand, or are pretending that you don’t understand. When we ask whether God wants us to worship him or not, WE know what the word means to US, because we invented it. The question has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s command of English. Either he does or he doesn’t want us to do what WE mean by the word we invented! You described your God as benevolent. Did you then ask yourself: “Ah, but does God understand what I mean by benevolent?” Of course you didn’t. Stop dodging.

Of course I do! What we mean by benevolent may not have the same meaning at the God level. We do not know how our words relate to God. An omniscient God must know our meaning, but He may not view it as we do. That is the conundrum.

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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?

dhw: You have totally ignored all of the above, which responds to your admission that you are a Jekyll and Hyde, which explains all the absurd contradictions that make nonsense of your theories. The very fact that you see your perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God as the designer of an imperfect, inefficient system (your adjectives, not mine) illustrates the confusion caused by your two conflicting identities. This was an honest acknowledgement of your own confusion and of the contradictions I listed earlier. Please don’t start trying to cover it all up again.

we don't need to.