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

by dhw, Tuesday, July 30, 2024, 10:51 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: God, by definition must be perfect.

This is already an absurd statement. Firstly, you have said yourself that there as many gods as people who invent them. Secondly, the words “god” and “perfection” are human inventions, and we use them according to our own criteria. “Perfect” can only mean without what we consider to be faults. If we consider his work to be imperfect, then in our eyes he cannot be perfect.

DAVID: That I see imperfections in evolution is my human view. God may well see them differently.

Correct. So you consider God to be imperfect. I am discussing this with you. I can’t discuss it with God, if he exists.

DAVID: As for God's attributes my approach is totally different than yours. God is NOT human so any discussion must apply our terms allegorically to Him. How else to do it when discussing a non-person at a super-natural level?

Either we discuss what WE mean, or there is no point in having any discussions at all. If you think he wants us to worship him, you and I know precisely what you mean. There is no “allegory”. Either he does or does not want us to worship him. Having human attributes does not mean that the creator of a universe is a human being. It simply means that the creator may have endowed his creations with some of his own characteristics.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: No, Adler's instructions allow me to think independently. I am not confused. You are. You obviously have no guidelines to follow.

I can think of no principles/instructions that could possibly allow more independent thought than agnosticism. You frequently complain that you know of no theology that offers my theistic alternatives to your schizophrenic contradictions. Guidelines/instructions inhibit independent thinking!