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

by dhw, Monday, August 12, 2024, 08:52 (35 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: The OT has always been some actual history and a series of stories for me. The difference in my interpretation of God from yours is a perfect God chose to use a cumbersome system in our human view for His own reasons.

We were talking about your definition of God as “perfect”. You totally misunderstood the reference to the OT, and now you’re merely repeating your belief that your perfect God used an imperfect method to achieve the purpose you impose on him. Yet another of your schizophrenic, self-contradictory beliefs.

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

If it is possible that your God might have some human attributes, you cannot reject any “humanizing” of him. You yourself proposed that your God might enjoy creating, might want to be recognized and worshipped, and is benevolent. Now you reject your own proposal. Schizophrenic is your own diagnosis. Please, please, take a grip and stop all this nonsense. We agree that nobody knows your God’s true nature, but it is possible that he has human thought patterns and emotions. It is therefore totally unreasonable to reject logical alternatives to your own illogical, contradictory theory of evolution just because they entail his having human thought patterns and emotions you don’t want him to have.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I don't use Raup as any support of God's role.

Then why are you quoting him? See “More Miscellany, Part One”.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Adler is not responsible for my use of his guidelines.

I can almost hear his sigh of relief. Please stop insulting him by telling us that you follow him to a T, when you know that his guidelines do not lead to your schizophrenic self-contradictions.