Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 19, 2025, 10:40 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The controversy is not about “snowball” versus “warming”! You and Watts have both acknowledged that the planet is getting hotter! The controversy is over the degree of danger that this presents.

DAVID: Agreed.

This is a common practice of yours – to avoid the subject under discussion, or to dodge particular questions. You do the same in the next exchange.

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

dhw: How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

DAVID: See above. 'Degree of danger' is the issue. Those of us with me think the degree is small.

But do you believe we should go on indefinitely, or even increasingly, cutting down the forests, burning fossil fuels, and using methods of transport and agriculture which are known to poison the air and the soil?

DAVID: Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

dhw: I’ve explained above precisely why this is not an easy job, but it’s a job which requires action now, to be continued as quickly and smoothly as possible. The fact that it’s difficult does not mean that the danger posed by climate change can be dismissed as panic or propaganda!

DAVID: Back to your panic mode of propaganda.

The fact that the changes will be difficult does not prove that it is OK to continue present practices. Please answer my question above.

Symbiosis

dhw: […] it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. [...] But the origin of "the conscious cell" remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God.[…]

DAVID: You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know.

DAVID: I know the difference as I see it. Agnosticism grudgingly suggests a God might exist.

You have just agreed that “no one knows!” Agnostics accept that no one knows, and we can see the logic and the non-logic behind the choices made by theists and atheists. In our discussions, I offer various alternative theories, which include God as the designer – the intelligent cell being one of them. There is no “grudgingly”. But you stick to your own illogical theories (e.g. anthropocentric evolution, all-good creator of evil (theodicy), selfless but might want to be worshipped), and you pretend that my alternatives, such as an experimenting God or a God who enjoys creating, or learns as he goes along, are atheistic!

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Design takes a working mind.

dhw: Agreed. Hence Margulis’s theory of the conscious cell. If nothing else, this would remove the astonishing anomaly of an all-powerful, all-knowing, messy, inefficient God.

DAVID: Note the agnostic speaks like an atheist. The version of agnosticism I get from you is 90% athism.

“Maybe [the conscious cell] was designed by your God.” How does that constitute 90% atheism? I repeat your own words:
DAVID: No one knows. Some us choose.

Theists choose God, atheists choose no God, and agnostics do not choose. Got it?

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

DAVID: The ecosystem may require a cavity for more protection.

Once again, you simply ignore the question. You insist that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest. Do you believe that other birds had the intelligence to design their own nests?