Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Yeah I don't personally have much stake in this, as I said before any God worth worshiping isn't going to be found by, as Feser says, playing "Where's Waldo?" with mutations.

Not wanting to take the discussion in another direction but it seems to me that a true God would prefer agnosticism or even atheism to worship. At least those two provide questioning and scope to learn (therefore evolve) rather than some stagnant blind faith and acceptance. Of course, this is all anthropomorphic speculating because we are probably not equipped to know the mind of a "true God".

Not wanting to take the discussion in another direction but it seems to me that a true God would prefer agnosticism or even atheism to worship. At least those two provide questioning and scope to learn (therefore evolve) rather than some stagnant blind faith and acceptance. Of course, this is all anthropomorphic speculating because we are probably not equipped to know the mind of a "true God".

If we can't understand God's mind even less of a reason to worship it?

If we can't understand God's mind even less of a reason to worship it?

We know god’s mind through scripture though. He’s neurotic and insecure (which is why you capitalised the G.     )

We know god’s mind through scripture though. He’s neurotic and insecure (which is why you capitalised the G.     )

Heh, I was thinking it's easier to distinguish God as in either the First Being or Ground of Being from deities that would be spirits with power over some domain (Luck, Storms, etc).

Not sure anyone here even uses "God" as referring to a being described in religious scripture?

Not sure anyone here even uses "God" as referring to a being described in religious scripture?

Apart from the atheists. Go figure.

Heh, I was thinking it's easier to distinguish God as in either the First Being or Ground of Being from deities that would be spirits with power over some domain (Luck, Storms, etc).

How is that easier, and for whom?

Not sure anyone here even uses "God" as referring to a being described in religious scripture?

Despite the shared arguments

How is that easier, and for whom?

Easier b/c it's in line with the global use of the term -> People using the word God (with capital G) are talking about an entity that at the least ordered the primordial chaos to make the universe, though people disagree about the existence of this being's current status.

When people talk about gods like Athena or Thoth, using the lower case "g", they see them as entities in plural with dominion over different domains (Knowledge, War, Death, etc).

Despite the shared arguments

Sure, but skeptics often share many of the same arguments as the nihilists who say materialism means human existence is completely worthless. (Of course the nihilist are correct [about materialism], unless there's something serious in "compatibilitism"...but I believe that's the kind of torturous semantic gaming you dislike about philosophy?)

Heck many proponents and skeptics share baseline assumptions, for example physics says something relevant about our experienced reality is assumed by both sides - the difference being how much about reality is captured.

Sure, but skeptics often share many of the same arguments as the nihilists who say materialism means human existence is completely worthless. (Of course the nihilist are correct ...

Had to read this twice before I realised that you weren't saying that nihilists - and materialists - are correct but that you are saying that nihilists are correct in their interpretation of materialism. Phew!

Had to read this twice before I realised that you weren't saying that nihilists - and materialists - are correct but that you are saying that nihilists are correct in their interpretation of materialism. Phew!

good point, made an edit - sorry for the confusion!