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

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 09, 2024, 19:11 (60 days ago) @ dhw

And:
DAVID:I am perfectly comfortable with my two distinct approaches.

If you are comfortable with a theology which, for instance, tells you a) that your God is benevolent and probably/possibly and “of course” has human-like attributes, but b) can’t possibly be benevolent, because he is certainly not human in any way (= he can’t possibly have any human attributes), then it’s no wonder your theology is such a complete mess. I can imagine Adler (who taught you that it was 50/50) would turn in his grave.

DAVID: I see God from very distinct intellectual directions as a believer accepting God and as a critical philosopher of religion. I wear two hats while you wear none.

dhw: More obfuscation. Accepting God as what? Both your Jekyll and your Hyde believe in God and accept his existence. But your Jekyll says God is benevolent, and your Hyde says he can’t possibly be benevolent. This is not criticism of religion. It is you contradicting yourself. The honest answer would be that you believe God is benevolent but you recognize that we can never know if he is or not, and so the chances are 50/50, as your Adler tried to teach you.
In your more enlightened moments, you even agree, but then Jekyll and Hyde take over, and back you go to your 100 for/100 against.

I'm perfectly with Adler. He did not teach me to think about God religiously exclusively but also philosophically.

DAVID: Adler teaches we can only approach God using allegorical terms for Him while we use them at our level.

dhw: You have given us your definition of “allegory”, so please tell us what “moral or hidden meaning” there could be in the word “benevolent”.

That is the exact point. What does our word 'benevolent' mean to God? We don't know.

dhw: Meanwhile, you have told us that Adler says there is a 50/50 chance that his God cares for us. That = benevolence.

In our terms only. What is His understanding? Unknown again.

dhw: So he does not say he believes God cares for us as you do, and he does not say God can’t possibly care for us as you do (because God is certainly not human in any way). However, I am not discussing this with Adler. If your only defence of your illogical theories and blatant contradictions is that you are split into two conflicting personalities, then I don't think your theology will attract many converts.

I'm not peddling any form of theology.

DAVID: My compartmentalization is the perfect solution for me.

dhw: Your perfect solution is to believe in a God who is perfect and imperfect, benevolent and incapable of benevolence. You attack my theistic alternatives solely on the grounds that they entail human-like attributes. But since your Jekyll believes that your God probably/possibly has human-like attributes, you have demolished your case against my alternatives. The fact that your critical philosopher Hyde rejects all human-like attributes does not alter your Jekyll’s support for my different proposals: a God who feels human-like benevolence must also be capable of feeling the human-like enjoyment, interest, desire for recognition and worship which you yourself proposed not long ago. And since your critical philosopher Hyde believes your God is an imperfect, inefficient designer, there is clearly no reason why he should reject the idea that your God might need to experiment if he has a particular goal in mind. But in our discussions, you have failed to realize that you are not disagreeing with me: you are disagreeing with yourself.

My internal disagreements do not affect my approach to your humanized form of God. A purposeful God knows exactly His goals and proceeds accordingly. Yours doesn't.