Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 28, 2025, 12:44 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: Assuming a God in action, we must accept the history of evolution as it presents itself.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: Why God did it this way is totally unknown and cannot deny my theory on those grounds.

dhw: The fact that God’s purpose, methods and nature are unknown should make you open to different theories, but you illogically ridicule your God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and yet messy and inefficient. You also complain illogically that alternative theories “humanize” him, although you believe he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you even list some of them (enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship).

DAVID: Your constant humanizing of God offers no advance in understanding God's nature.

Nobody knows God’s nature. Why do you think your view of him as messy and inefficient is more of an “advance” than, for instance, the proposal that he wanted an ever-changing free-for-all, or that he enjoyed making new discoveries as he went along? Why do think the above list of possibilities suggested by you is not “humanizing”?

DAVID: What is an alternative to humans? I don't see one, do you?

dhw: […] How does that explain your God’s ridiculously inefficient use of evolution?

DAVID: We are here against all naturally positive odds. We are the end of evolution as we know it.

According to you, ALL life is here against all the odds – hence your logical argument that the complexity of ALL life is evidence of design. We have no idea what might evolve in the next few thousand million years, but even if we are the culmination, how does that explain your theory that your God is so humanly inefficient that although he is all-powerful, he had to design and cull 99% of life forms that had no connection with producing us plus food?

Balance of Nature: human

dhw: […] Trump’s current policies (“Drill, baby, drill” and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement) will now make it virtually impossible to get international consensus to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and on other factors that are already causing so much damage.

DAVID: But it will improve the USA economy, and as a citizen, I approve. China and India are not following the proposed Paris rules while still joined to the agreement!

dhw: You praise your loggers and would like to ask Brazil to follow suit, but now you’re happy to support some of the worst polluters in the world for NOT taking the necessary steps to restore Nature’s balance! Are you proud of Trump for following their example instead of that of his own loggers?

DAVID: I'm happy with drill baby drill to improve the USA economic position in the world.

So are you happy that China and India should continue the practices that we know are harmful to the environment, because that will improve their economic position? Please explain why you would like to ask Brazil to follow the example of your reforesting NA loggers.

DAVID: You spew Guardian propaganda unwittily. I specifically suggested you get some knowledge of the nitty gritty instead of your cook book propagandist point of view.

Please stop pretending that every scientist who identifies the harmful effects of fossil fuels, deforestation, and current modes of transport and agriculture has no knowledge of the nitty gritty. You know as well as I do that throughout the world there are cities, fields, rivers and oceans whose pollution is a constant threat to the health of humans and all other species. You are in favour of drill, baby, drill because it serves the economic interests of your country, and I am all in favour of action being tailored to prevent economic and social catastrophe, but I would suggest that the ultimate approach to reducing the damage in every continent and country should not be determined solely by what is best for the American economy in the here and now. Your NA loggers would agree.

dhw: Why do you prefer “as slowly as you like” to “as quickly as possible”?

DAVID: The so-called peril is in a distant future hundred of years from now.

Do you deny that current practices are already harming the environment? If you do, then once more: do you not accept that their continuation can only result in more damage? Do you not think it is better to reduce the damage as quickly as pragmatically possible, rather than as slowly as you like? Forget about prophecies. Nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now.