Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 15:39 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

As you have edited out or ignored the points of agreement, I will have to do some re-editing.

dhw: You agree that we are already causing damage to ourselves and our planet. Would you also agree that we need to take steps now to stop those interferences?

DAVID: I agree at the level of local damages.

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times.

I also used the word “catastrophe”, which you disputed, and as an example of local catastrophes I cited (in brackets) the current fires in LA. The cause of these is not yet known, and I was only responding to your points about “local” and “catastrophe”.

dhw: The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place […] is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: I have bolded the propaganda in your first entry above. In fact there are less environmental storms, as one example, all exhibited in Watt's site. Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

I summarized the views Watts expressed: “He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated […] the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.”

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

Later:
dhw: Has Watts reversed his view that it [global warming] is happening, and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

You have quoted all of this, and then ignored it! If it is a fair summary of his current views, why are you disputing it?

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Theology
Ozone layer

DAVID: Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

dhw: I have agreed that the complexities of living organisms (not just our brain) provide a logical case for design. I do not believe that a 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen provides evidence for design or for an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose sole purpose was to produce humans. Your own “analysis” comes up with the proposal that your God is a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” designer, which is hardly commensurate with your image of him as being all-powerful and all-knowing.

DAVID: His choice of evolution rather than direct creation means that roundabout creation was required as the best approach.

If he exists, his choice of evolution means that he wanted the ever changing diversity that has resulted from evolution. This does not exclude the possibility that he sometimes intervened, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along. Once more: The ever changing diversity does not, however, support the theory that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, but so messy, cumbersome and inefficient that he thought the best approach was to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. We are now repeating the arguments previously dealt with on the “evolution” thread that we closed, but this is inevitable so long as you use these articles to support your theological theories. However, at least we can keep the comments brief.

Root controls

DAVID: Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

More repetition: As above, I keep acknowledging the logic of design in relation to all life forms. You keep ignoring the logic of non-design in relation to items such as the 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen, or the billions of stars that come and go for no apparent reason, or the existence of sourceless consciousness (God) while at the same time you insist that consciousness (ours) must have had a source.