Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 01, 2025, 08:40 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: His non-humanist form is exact.

dhw: 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.

dhw: More meaningless talk. How can he have human attributes without being human in any way?

DAVID: He can express a human attribute by mimicry!

And it came to pass that the all-knowing creator of all things knew nothing of love, enjoyment, interest, relationships, recognition, worship, but when he did see human love, enjoyment, interest, relationships, recognition and worship he did imitate them in a non-human way. Please stop all this nonsense! Either he does or he doesn’t have attributes which he has passed on to us.

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

dhw: See above for your nonsensical 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.

DAVID: Theodicy fully covered previously.

Yes, you ran the whole gamut of evasions and contradictions, of which the above were just a few.

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.

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

We seem to be in agreement here, but then off you go again:

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: The truth is in the large group on Watt's site.

You have just agreed that India and China should switch, and Brazil should emulate your NA loggers by replanting. Are they or are they not causing damage to the environment?

dhw: Do you not think it 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 […] questions.

DAVID: 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 (yesterday): I can accept that.
DAVID (today): You are into word games. Pragmatic speed is slow not requiring your panic mode.

Yesterday you accepted the need for a balanced approach, as above. Today you pretend that “as quickly as pragmatically possible” = panic mode. Since when did a balanced approach mean panic? It’s you who are “into word games”!

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Unfortunately I agree with Trump.

Unfortunate indeed. You approve of replanting, you agree that Brazil should follow suit, you agree that India and China should stop digging, you know as well as I do that current practices are polluting the air, earth and water, you agree that these practices should end as quickly as pragmatically possible, but you don’t agree that for this to happen, there has to be international cooperation, and you are happy to have your country lead the way in preventing such cooperation and in encouraging other countries to do the same. Drill, baby, drill. Dig, baby, dig. Poison us, baby, poison us.