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

by David Turell , Saturday, August 10, 2024, 18:04 (103 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, August 10, 2024, 18:09

DAVID: Answered below, and I would add the rabbis find much in the OT that teaches moral and ethical issues:

Not answered. The fact that modern rabbis reject the OT image of their God does not alter the nature of the God presented in the OT! Of course the OT teaches moral and ethical issues. But do you or do you not accept that the God of the OT is a murderous, vengeful, self-centred being, exemplified by the Flood and the murderous laws laid down in Deuteronomy?

Any thinking person realizes the OT was written for those times for relatively uncivilized people. You swallowed it as a kid. I didn't, because I viewed them as just-so stories I didn't think deeply about. Then you have gagged it up upon more adult reflection.

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

dhw: 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.

Again, God is not human. All human attributes MAY not apply. Approach them allegorically as Adler advises.

DAVID: You want certainty about God: mine is selfless and pursues one purpose to create humans and their supporting ecosystem.

dhw: Certainty is impossible. I offer alternative views. You offer schizophrenic views of his nature: e.g. it’s possible that God enjoys creating, wants to be recognized and worshipped, and is benevolent towards us, but it’s not possible because he is not human in any way and is selfless. And you offer a theory of evolution that your perfect, purposeful, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who is in full control, invented a system which forced him to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him!

You read evolutionary history just as you swallowed the OT, in a form of conclusions I don't recognize as valid. Raup's statistics simply say, in toto, 99.9% went extinct to create a surviving present 0.1%. Assuming God did it, then despite evolutionary imperfections, that was His preferred method of creation of humans.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I follow Adler to the T. He would be horrified at your humanized God.

dhw: Does Adler argue that his perfect God’s use of evolution was imperfect and inefficient, or that that he believes in a schizophrenic God who might have human attributes but definitely has no human attributes, and that the way to think about God is to contradict yourself with every theory that you propose, except the design theory? You have admitted that your conclusions are your own, not Adler's, and it is your schizophrenic conclusions that we are discussing.

Yes, all my own conclusions following Adler's guidelines.