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

by dhw, Sunday, August 11, 2024, 11:01 (102 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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.

You have completely lost the thread. You wrote: “God, by definition must be perfect.” I pointed out that there are lots of versions of God, and “perfect” can only mean being without what we regard as faults, so if we think his work is imperfect (as you do), he can’t be perfect. And “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’.” You agree. And you tell me modern rabbis agree. And so you rubbish the OT and substitute the God you wish to believe in.

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.

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

How many more times? Of course a sourceless, eternal, bodiless mind is not human. You have never been able to define “allegorically”, which in this context is totally meaningless. Either he has or he doesn’t have human attributes such as those you consider possible, like enjoyment of creation, the desire to be recognized and worshipped, benevolence towards us. We are in agreement. You just don’t like it when I propose that he might have human attributes such as enjoyment of new discoveries.

dhw […] 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!

DAVID: You read evolutionary history just as you swallowed the OT in a form of conclusions I don't recognize as valid ….

I have not swallowed the OT. See above for your acceptance of my comment on the OT.

DAVID: ...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.

I accept Raup’s statistics, though I’d hesitate to be quite so precise about the figures. If God did it, then of course these figures were the result. But Raup does not say that God set out to create humans and deliberately created but then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species in order to do so. Raup attributes survival to luck, not to a God’s imperfect method of achieving the goal you impose on him. Even if Raup believed in God, the statistics would fit in perfectly with your God creating a free-for-all, or experimenting to make new discoveries. Please stop kidding yourself that your interpretation of Raup’s statistics supports your irrational view of your perfect God’s imperfect use of evolution.

The Adler confusion

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.

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

So Adler has guided you to all the self-contradictory conclusions that lead you to believe in a schizophrenic, imperfectly perfect God. Not much of a recommendation, is it?