Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 30, 2025, 20:16 (5 hours, 16 minutes ago) @ dhw

Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: When I ascribe all of those ideas to God's personality, I know I am applying human concepts to a non-human God. Result is we do not know if any apply!

dhw: Of course we don’t know. But they are all possible, which is why it is totally absurd for you to say your God “is never human in any way”. If your God may have these “human” aspects (and indeed, why should he not endow his creations with some of his attributes?), then you have no grounds for saying alternative versions are not possible because they entail “human” aspects.

His non-humanist form is exact. It allows Him to exhibit human behavior without Him being human in any way.

DAVID: your constant complaint is that God used evolution. We both agree it is an indirect method. That does not negate the theory God wanted to produce humans.

dhw; I have no complaint about God using evolution. On the contrary, I would assume that he used evolution because he wanted the diversity and the apparent free-for-all that he created. Your theory negates this intention and replaces it with the theory that your all-powerful God is messy and inefficient. In my alternatives, he may have been experimenting, may have dabbled, may have enjoyed making new discoveries, and any of these would account for the late arrival of humans. But no, you stick to ridiculing him.

I stick to pointing out the humanized God you just reinvented. I understand you are avoiding making Him all-powerful.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Note, it is ASK Brazil! India and China are already defying the world it increased coal use the dirtiest of all.

dhw: So do you approve of their use of coal or do you think they should be encouraged to find alternative, cleaner forms of fuel as quickly as possible?

DAVID: I said 'dirtiest'. I wish they would switch.

dhw: Thank you. And may I take it you would be in favour of them switching as quickly as pragmatically possible rather than as slowly as they like?

As reasonable as economic stability .

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.

dhw: 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.

Your assumption is a major reason for your hostile approach to the whole subject. You’d rather insult the intelligence/integrity of those who demand action than consider the realities which you yourself have recognized! You agree with reforestation and wish the Chinese and the Indians would reduce their dependence on “dirty” fossil fuels. But you say there is no hurry. Drill, baby, drill.

All scientist hired by the UN are in lockstep with UN propaganda.

DAVID: Drill baby drill is not dirty. We get lots of relatively clean LNG from it. I'm against dig baby dig which is filthy.

dhw It's the drilling that causes most of the pollution, but I’m talking about the whole principle: if current practices are causing damage, they should be phased out as quickly as pragmatically possible (which means a balance between avoiding environmental disaster and avoiding economic and social disaster).

Avoiding economic and social disaster is the major consideration.

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

dhw: Do you deny that current practices are already harming the environment? If you don't deny it [correction to my original entry!], 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.

DAVID: Exactly my point: " Nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now."

dhw: But we do know what is happening now, so please answer my three questions.

DAVID: I think answered. I'm still with a slow reasonable economic response.

dhw: You’re obfuscating. “Reasonable economic response” ties in with my call for a balance between the need to avoid environmental disaster and the need to avoid social and economic disaster. Why have you inserted “slow”? Why not “as quickly as pragmatically possible”?

I can accept that.