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

by dhw, Thursday, August 08, 2024, 09:11 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: The present rabbis look at God as Hillel did and in more modern versions as a caring loving God. The OT was written in times for less general intelligence. Your angry killer God doesn't exist.

Please point me to a modern version of the OT that excludes the story of the Flood and the laws laid down in Deuteronomy. You are making my point for me. The God presented in the OT is a murderous, vengeful, self-centred being. I’m not surprised to hear that you and modern rabbis reject the God of the OT, since he is so far from their and your wishes. It’s also interesting that in spite of your Mr Hyde’s view that God is not human in any way, they endow him with human emotions such as caring and loving.

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.

dhw: 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: It is possible God might have some human attributes, but we cannot know if we are correct. So, all conclusions are moot.

We are in agreement. So please put a gag on your Mr Hyde, and stop him from objecting to alternative explanations of evolution on the grounds that they entail human attributes different from those that you envisage.

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.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: In contrast, what I accept is God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

And he chose to evolve all other life forms extant and extinct for his own reasons. But you go on to insist that he evolved all other life forms for the sole reason that he wanted to design us and our contemporaries, and therefore designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our contemporaries. That is why you ridicule him as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (which you seem to keep forgetting).

Worship
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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Recognizing He is selfless is where to start any discussion. He creates for no self- aggrandizing purpose.

How the heck do you know? It was you who first suggested that he may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him! Hence your admission that your beliefs are schizophrenic – you are constantly contradicting yourself.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Sometimes an Adler quote is pertinent.

Agreed. That is, for instance, when you argue that God might possibly have human attributes, cannot possibly have human attributes, but you agree with Adler that there is a 50/50 chance that God has human attributes. I suspect that Adler would turn in his grave if he knew that his instructions on how to think about God had led you into your maze of contradictions.