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

by dhw, Saturday, July 20, 2024, 08:00 (50 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining the “David’s theory” thread with the “Gelernter” thread.

DAVID: since we are inventing possible attributes of God I like my form and you like yours. It can't be resolved.

dhw: This is real progress. In the past you have simply rejected all my alternatives outright, on the grounds that they “humanize” God, although it is probable/possible that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. The choice now – astonishingly, since you are a believer and I am an agnostic – is between your imperfect, messy, clumsy and inefficient God and mine, who in all three alternatives knows exactly what he wants and gets it.

DAVID: That each of us has a preferred form of God does not create progress to an agreement.

Of course not. I have simply pointed out that your ridicule of your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God’s combined evolutionary purpose and method as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient might possibly be wrong. Previously, you have rejected all my theistic alternatives (nothing “preferred”) out of hand as “humanizing”, but now you say it’s a matter of which “possible attributes” we prefer.

DAVID: I am comfortable with my beliefs, that is all I require.

I pointed out that Hitler and Co would have used the same argument.

DAVID: To each his own.

dhw: So you have no objection to opinions which lead to exterminations, racism, persecution etc. as perpetrated by people who are comfortable with their own beliefs?

DAVID: That is a huge stretch. Of course, I will fight against such unethical forces.

dhw: Then you should be able to recognize that being comfortable with your beliefs is no guarantee that they are the truth, so please stop insisting that your God’s only possible purpose was us and our food, and his only possible (imperfect and inefficient) method of producing us was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us.

DAVID: I will continue to believe God evolved us as His major desired endpoint. That we think His method was cumbersome is a human level judgement, not God's.

In the past it has been his one and only purpose, and you have never identified any “minor” purpose. “We” do not think his method was cumbersome. I think your version of his method, which you ridicule as cumbersome and inefficient, is highly unlikely. I offer alternatives, which have him elegantly and efficiently doing exactly what he wants to do.

Schizophrenia
DAVID: My two views do not and cannot mean God is schizophrenic. His benevolence is an attribute we wish for Him, but like Adler, I am 50/50 on the subject. Neutral.

dhw: This is the problem. You keep changing your mind and ignoring what you have written. Referring to nasty microbiomes under “microbes in trees” you wrote: “A benevolent God did this, fully understanding the consequences.” That is not a “wish – it is a belief. Previously, you had written: “He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense[/b].” That is not 50/50 neutral. If you believe he is benevolent, and you believe he is not human in any sense, you believe in a Jekyll and Hyde God, which some of us would call schizophrenia, or split personality, or dissociative identity disorder.

DAVID: My views of God are honest philosophical judgements. It leads me to certain beliefs which are my judgements, not proof of anything.

I do not question your honesty, and of course your beliefs don’t prove anything.

DAVID: The God I think about is not schizophrenic, while MY views are schizo. I don't see God as Jekyll or Hyde even if my views are.

If your view is that your God is benevolent but not benevolent, may want recognition and worship but does not want recognition and worship, then your view is that he is schizophrenic. That does not mean that he IS schizophrenic. It is simply your belief that he is.

DAVID: You want positivity in beliefs.

I want no such thing, since my agnosticism leaves me on the fence. I can only offer alternative theories.

DAVID: It [positivity] doesn't exist, except 'God is a personage like no other person'. That is Adler's logical starting point in 'how to think about God'. One God can have many viewpoints humans take. My split views don't split God!!

Nobody in his right mind would assume that God is a “person” like you and me. That doesn’t mean he can’t have human attributes. See above for your view of a split God.
The rest of your post comes down to this:

DAVID: That God I've met is Adler's, in His philosophy of God.

I’m surprised that Adler ridicules God as a messy, inefficient designer, and that he views God schizophrenically as benevolent but not benevolent, wanting but not wanting recognition etc. as above, although apparently Adler himself says such attributes are 50/50. Since you follow him, are you saying that his views are schizophrenic?