Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 08, 2025, 09:09 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: Theology

DAVID: Same theodicy reply. All side effects of His good works.

dhw: Same theodicy reply: as omnipotent, omniscient first cause, your God knowingly created every source of evil. Proportionality of good to evil is irrelevant, and “side effects” are hardly a tribute to his efficiency if he never wanted evil in the first place. NB Theodicy remains an unsolved problem for theologians. It’s not one of my making!

DAVID: The answers don't satisfy you. It takes faith.

I find it strange that you should have faith that your omnipotent God is an inefficient designer who is all-good although he knowingly created evil. But of course anyone can close a discussion this way. An atheist could tell you that life came about through a stroke of luck: the answer won’t satisfy you. It takes faith.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Study our carbon results! We are a fine example of what to do. We should work on sanctions with other nations, no Paris Accord needed.

dhw: The purpose of the Paris Agreement was to bring all nations together to agree on and implement measures to be taken (which almost all of them did). You are absolutely right: USA should work with other nations, to ensure that the rules are not ignored. Instead, Trump has not only turned his back on other nations, but is even hell-bent on starting a trade war through sanctions that have nothing to do with the environment but are designed solely in order to serve America’s interests. A fine example to set for China and India!

DAVID: The tariff threat got results with no trade war started. Your point "which almost all of them did" is not true. It is like NATO supposed dues, never fully implemented.

The tariff war has scarcely begun. Europe is waiting in fear and trembling, and China has already announced counter-measures. My initial comment was badly phrased: I meant that nearly all of them (including China, India and USA) had agreed on the necessary measures and had signed up to implement them. I stand by my view that Trump’s withdrawal, on the grounds that America’s economic interests come first, already supports all those countries who are breaking the agreed rules. What hope is there, then, for the cooperation which you yourself have agreed is essential for a balanced approach to the known threats to our environment?