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

by David Turell , Saturday, July 20, 2024, 19:17 (124 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw 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.

Which means I can ridicule your namby-pamby humanized God any way I wish. Or we can be nice to each other. However, we can never agree, based on our individual starting points.

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.

dhw: 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.

Free-for-alls which entertain and experimentation produce a so-called God weak in purpose.

Schizophrenia

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.

dhw: 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.

What all of this means is we cannot know if any of the attributes we attach to God's personality can apply.

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!!

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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?

Adler solves the yes or no problem by bringing us the concept of allegorical attributes, much like Schrodinger's dead and alive cat. All you ascribe above to Adler are my thoughts, not Adler's.