Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 25, 2025, 08:41 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: Do you yourself feel a need for weaverbirds’ nests?

DAVID: That area of the Earth does.

dhw: And God said: “I’m gonna give all birds the brains to design their own nests, but there’s places in Africa where humans need knotty nests that nobody but me can build. An’ if I don’t build ‘em, them thar humans ain’t gonna survive.” I don’t buy it.

DAVID: I do, but not your inventive distortion.

dhw: So please tell us in your own words why you think your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest in order to design Africans and their food, whereas he was quite happy to enable other birds to do their own designing.

DAVID: He wished to give these birds extra special egg protection for His own reasons. That is as far as I can go.

So you have come up with a theory which makes absolutely no sense even to you, but presumably you expect it to be taken seriously! Your two books Science vs Religion and The Atheist Delusion are based firmly and brilliantly on reasoned arguments in defence of the God theory. Design by a designer makes perfect sense. But when it comes to discussing the possible purposes, methods and nature of your God, you abandon reason altogether, even to the point of ridiculing your all-powerful God’s inefficiency.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Only the Brazilians can take action!!! While you panic.

dhw: […] Of course only the different countries can take the necessary actions to stop the damage. (Hence the Paris Agreement.) So who do you think is right: your North Americans, who replant, or your Brazilians, who continue to practise deforestation (although they have slightly reduced the amount)?

DAVID: My caring or not about the Amazon forest will not change events Brazilians try upon.

I am not asking you to govern Brazil! We are exchanging views. So do you approve of the NA loggers who replant, or do you support the Brazilians who continue to practise deforestation?

DAVID: I can only applaud my countries here.

"My countries"? I presume you mean you support your fellow American loggers, Which means you support the proposal that measures should taken NOW to prevent further escalation of the damage that is already being caused by current practices. Thank you.

dhw: There is no need for me to repeat the two opposing views on climate change, as the point is clear. Different experts have different views. David quoted a retired sea captain and a climatologist who are sceptical, and I quoted the United Nations experts.

DAVID: As phony a group as I have ever seen.

dhw: […] Your hatred of the UN does not mean that every American, European, Asian, African and Oceanian expert who believes in the dangers of climate change is a phoney, an idiot, an ignoramus, or a tool being manipulated by the poorer countries. Let me repeat my own view, though: NOBODY knows exactly what will happen or when if we continue to use our current methods and materials. But current pollution and poisoning is real, and it makes sense to restore the balance of nature as quickly as practically possible, rather than as slowly as possible. Of course not overnight….but we should intensify research into new methods and materials rather than extending the use of those that are causing the damage. Your NA loggers are setting a good example.

DAVID: Of course, but are the Brazilians learning anything? Doubtful.

No, they are not, and they and the farmers and the fossil fuel producers and users never will if people like you and Trump (“Drill, baby, drill!”) tell them they can carry on because the damage they are causing is not damage but is make-believe invented by a worldwide bunch of phoney scientists.