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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 07, 2024, 08:44 (40 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I would add that if the murderous, vengeful, self-centred God of the OT is real, I doubt if even you would regard that as “perfection”.

DAVID: Present day Rabbis' have softened that interpretation, considering the level of civility in that time period. But even in that time Rabbi Hillel was delivering Jesus' God loves you message before Jesus arrived.

dhw: It must be reassuring to know that rabbis can mess about with what was once considered the Word of God. Do they now tell us that lots of people survived the Flood, and Moses made a mistake when he said that God wants Jews to kill anyone who doesn’t believe in him, and to raze their cities to the ground?

DAVID: Your literal approach to the OT is not used today. Yours is an Antediluvian view. (pun intended)

What do you mean by “used”? Have modern rabbis rewritten the OT, or do they tell us to ignore the nasty bits? If so, then clearly they agree with me that the murderous God of the OT is not their idea of “perfection”. Do you disagree?

DAVID: "God is not human" cannot be contradicted. All problems flow from that thought. It is possible He reflects us in some ways. That is as far as one can go.

dhw: At last we agree. Of course God is not a human being. But yes indeed, it is possible that he has human attributes. So will you please once and for all stop telling us that your God is not human in any way. I shall remind you of this every time you moan that my alternative theistic theories “humanize” God.

DAVID: 'Reflecting us in some ways' is a purposely vague observation!!! But you pounce on it to somehow show your humanizing of God is OK! It isn't.

Please stop all this obfuscation. You proposed that God enjoys creating, and might want us to recognize and worship him, and that he is benevolent. These are human attributes, and you agree they are possible. It is also possible that he might have created a free-for-all for his enjoyment, and that he might have been experimenting instead of knowingly, messily and inefficiently designing and having to cull 99.9% of his creations. And you have admitted the ridiculous schizophrenic nature of your beliefs that he is not human in any way, but it is possible that he has human attributes, which means that it is possible that he is human in some ways.

DAVID: Join me in belief and see how respect works.

dhw: Why should I respect your guesses about God’s purposes and actions, when you can’t think of a single reason why he would act in the ways you impose on him? It is YOU who ridicule YOUR theory of your God’s purpose and method as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient! Is that how “respect works”?

DAVID: Our criticism of God's use of evolution is our human level of understanding. I respect God knows what He is doing for His own unknown reasons. You totally miss the points.

It is not “our” criticism but YOURS! If God exists, I’m sure he would know what he is doing, and you totally miss the point that it is only your interpretation that turns him into an inefficient blunderer!

Worship

DAVID: Again, your confusion: of course, in our human discussions we know exactly what we mean. WE have NO IDEA what it means as applied to God. Thus allegory at God level!!

dhw: Yet again: we know what we mean by the word "worship", which is our invention. The question is not “what does God understand by the word worship?” but “does God want us to worship him or not?”

DAVID: I don't know. God may not NEED human worship. Thus, back to allegorical.

dhw: Why are you talking about “need”? There is no “allegory”! Either he wants us to worship him (= praise, admire and thank him), or he doesn’t.

DAVID: It is 'need' if God desires our worship. We cannot know if He does.

How many more times? We cannot “know” anything. You suggested he might want us to worship him. I agree that it’s possible. But then you tell us that he is selfless, and so you contradict yourself and say he can’t possibly want us to worship him.

The Adler confusion

DAVID: Adler tells us how to think about God. Any conclusions are our own, not his!

If his instructions on how to think about God lead you to your collection of schizophrenic contradictory conclusions, then so be it. We are discussing your conclusions, so Adler is irrelevant to all these discussions.