Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 05, 2025, 12:10 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: As all-knowing He knows all of our human attributes and may use them in His own way, while not being human in any way.

dhw: As all-knowing first cause of everything, he would have known every attribute you can think of, and if he enjoyed creating, was interested in his creations, wanted a relationship, wanted to be recognized and worshipped, these would be attributes he would pass on to us (the most likely meaning of the Bible’s “in his own image”, since clearly this would not be physical). Remember, all of these were YOUR suggestions, and you have agreed that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. So what are you arguing about?

DAVID: Making my point. God is not human.

Of course he’s not human. How can an immaterial, eternal, sourceless mind be a human being? But that does not mean he is not human in any way, which is your great dodge whenever I support your own humanizations (which you contradict by also insisting that he is selfless), or suggest different ones (e.g. experimentation, the pleasure of making discoveries or having new ideas) in order to counter your ridicule of him as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Stop dodging!

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: The USA record of carbon control is very good. Why bother with Paris if the giants, India and China, ignore all the rules? […]

dhw: […] If nations are governed by rulers who do not want to cooperate, there is no hope of a solution. Currently, this is clearly the case with the US. How can the necessary pressure be put on non-cooperative nations if the world’s most powerful economic nation sets the tone by going its own way?

DAVID: But look at our carbon results. Reduced!!!

And look at your excellent loggers, who replant trees. Yes, indeed, you fully approve of an
approach whereby measures to eradicate the dangers of environmental catastrophe are balanced by the need to avoid social and economic catastrophe, i.e. these measures should be taken as quickly as pragmatically possible. And you would like other nations to do the same. And you agree that this will not happen unless all nations cooperate. But you approve of your president prioritising American economic interests and turning his back on the only possible means of achieving international cooperation, which is for nations like the US to join together in putting pressure on those nations which – as you put it – are ignoring the rules.