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

by dhw, Sunday, July 28, 2024, 07:09 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is nothing wrong with God enjoying Himself, but we do not know that God 'needs' enjoyment. He is not human, although you approach Him that way. Why apply any humanness to Him at all?

dhw: You keep talking about “need” in your desperation to make this version of God sound weak. Enjoyment is a purpose in itself. And please stop repeating the obvious fact that an eternal creator of universes is not human. That does not mean that the creator of humans (if he exists) cannot have human-like thought patterns and emotions. Why apply these to God? Because if God exists, I’d have thought it would at least be of interest to know what he might be like – especially if you have studied what so-called experts tell us about him. Is he really the murderous, self-centred tyrant of the OT, or a being who loves us, or who couldn’t care less about us? Are you really not interested?

DAVID: I am very interested in our discussions, but we should remember the discussion is all guesswork. The theologists I've read present their own imagined guesswork. I take the position to take the imagined God that appeals to you/me. Yours is always part-human as you present Him. Adler at least presents a guide to thinking about God. I follow it as established philosophic principles.

See below re Adler. You don’t need to remind me that all our speculations are “guesswork”, including the very existence of God. But they should not involve an imagined God that appeals to us. If God exists, I can’t believe anyone would not want him to be caring and loving etc. Our discussions should focus on the only possible evidence we have of his nature, which is the reality of what – if he exists - he has created. Jews and Christians rely heavily on the Bible, some parts of which depict a self-centred, murderous, vengeful tyrant, while others describe a loving God who cares for us. (Two opposing views, both equally “humanized”.) You present equally contradictory, equally “humanized” views both on evolution and on your God’s nature and purpose(s), which I don’t need to repeat here. And I offer alternative interpretations of evolution and God’s nature. However, in my defence, you have agreed that my alternative explanations of evolution fit in logically with the history of life as we know it, whereas your single explanation is so contradictory that you are forced to admit that you can find no logical reason why he should have chosen such an inefficient method. . Your acceptance that he may have human attributes, although you are certain that he doesn’t, is another fundamental split. Your reference above to “part human” refers to human attributes, such as benevolence, malevolence, caring, not caring, selflessness, self-interest etc. You may, of course, be right: your God may indeed be schizophrenic. But then I suspect your third self would step in and object that an imperfect, inefficient, malevolent, schizophrenic God can hardly be called “perfect”.

The Adler confusion

DAVID: My conclusions follow using Adler's principles. My thoughts only.

dhw: If Adler’s principles really allowed you to depict your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God as an imperfect, inefficient, schizophrenic designer, then his principles must be as wacky as your conclusions. But I suspect your My Hyde is up to his tricks again.

DAVID: […] My position is quite clear. If my following Adler's principles led to my conclusions, they are not Adler's.

If his principles led to your long list of schizophrenic contradictions, that is hardly a recommendation of his principles, but in any case, I am arguing with you not with Adler, so please stop referring to him as if somehow that justified your confusion.