Miscellaneous (General)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 01, 2024, 22:04 (2 days ago) @ dhw

Negative theology

DAVID: Entirely as untrue distortion of God's evolution, Repeated by you as a repetitive
mantra does not make it true. All of evolution is a culling process, isn't it?

dhw" Yes, but that does not mean there’s a God whose sole purpose was to create us and therefore he created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and “had to” cull them. Raup suggests that survival was a matter of luck. I’ve offered you three alternative THEISTIC explanations, which you dismiss on grounds of “humanization”, although you agree that “humanized” attributes are possible and do not mean that your God is a human being.

Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.

dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.

God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.

dhw: Of course he is selfless if he is selfless! Your own proposals bolded above, however, are all very feasible “humanizations” and are not selfless. Hence your schizophrenic self-contradictions.

Total misunderstanding of the point. A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

I just stated they do it by following directions.

Stoicism

From an interview with Massimo Pigliucci:

QUOTES:

"...the Stoics were about embracing your fate, or, as Nietzsche famously put it much later on, ‘amor fati’ or love your fate.”

"Not everyone likes seeing Stoicism as a religion, and of course, that’s okay. Pigliucci’s latest book is a fantastic and highly readable exploration of the different ancient philosophies available, and it settles on a kind of balance. We need virtue, sure, but we also need pleasure and epistemic humility. Explore philosophy and find something that works for you. Take what you need. Do whatever you can to get by and to get better."

DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.

dhw: For most people, stoicism is synonymous with Nietzsche’s summary of it. I have no idea why anyone should think that “embracing” fate and living virtuously depend on exploring philosophy or on religion (which while promoting virtue has also been and continues to be the source of much evil). My own basic principles are to enjoy life while I have it, to do my best to help others enjoy their lives, to do no harm, and to accept as best I can whatever aspects of life I am unable to change. That does not eliminate grief or promote insensitivity to my own suffering or other people’s. On the contrary, it enhances empathy and my determination to follow the above principles so long as I am able to do so. How about you?

'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.