Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, January 31, 2025, 15:43 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: 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”. […]

DAVID: His non-humanist form is exact.

If we don’t know something, how can we know exactly what it is?

DAVID: It allows Him to exhibit human behavior without Him being human in any way.

More meaningless talk. How can he have human attributes without 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.

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

See above for your belief that your inefficient God can be humanized without being human in any way. Yes, it is possible that even your God is NOT all-powerful. For instance, he couldn’t avoid making a mess of evolution, couldn’t avoid creating evil, couldn’t find cures for some of the evils he created.

Balance of Nature: human
DAVID: 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?

DAVID: As reasonable as economic stability.

Yes, there needs to be a balance between avoiding environmental disaster and avoiding economic and social disaster.

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.

DAVID: All scientists hired by the UN are in lockstep with UN propaganda.

There are scientists all over the world who believe that we need to change our current practices – hence the agreement of nearly 200 nations that action is required. Do you really think none of them have studied the “nitty-gritty”, or they have all been paid by the UN to tell lies? Does it not occur to you that the governments of some 200 countries might have been influenced by the truth?

dhw: Do you deny that current practices are already harming the environment? If you don't deny it , 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”?

DAVID: I can accept that.

And so we have reached agreement. The dangers are real, are not mere propaganda, and we wish all countries would cooperate in acting as quickly as possible to eliminate those dangers while at the same time balancing their measures against the equally important need to avoid economic and social disaster. I would suggest that you now write to President Trump, urging him to rejoin the Paris Agreement and devote his mighty powers of persuasion to getting all countries to cooperate in following America’s example in finding the best and quickest ways to prevent environmental, social and economic disasters.