A World without Religion?

[Bradski]

Perhaps discussing that we’ll get a bit further than trying to decipher Flynn.

No problem.

In the link to your earlier post, there are other links, one to page by biologos, which is summarised thus:

“So that’s the situation we are in with regard to the human population size in ancient history. There was a bottleneck. There were likely fewer people alive during that time than the number of fans attending a typical NHL hockey game. (We don’t know if they were all together in one village, of course, but the total was small.) However, it was not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.”

Can’t argue with that. A few thousand people and most definitely not two. However, going to Fesser’s blog (the first to which you linked) he says:

'There are two main issues that have come up in the discussion sparked by John’s article. First, is modern biology consistent with the claim that the human race began with a single pair à la the biblical story of Adam and Eve? Second, is modern biology consistent with the claim that this pair transmitted the stain of original sin to their descendents via propagation rather than mere imitation? The answer to both questions is “Yes.” ’

Now I don’t see any theological nuances here whereby what he is saying could be misinterpreted. He asks if there was, biologically speaking, a single pair and answers ‘yes’, in direct opposition to the biologos quote.

However, he does go on to suggest that just one pair were imbued with a soul by God:

“Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.”

But Flynn, to whom Fesser links as back up to his theory, suggests that as doctrine only need include the male, it was only the man that was given a soul (because as he realises and perhaps what Fesser doesn’t, our most recent common ancestor on the maternal line lived at a different time to that on the paternal line).

Fesser, slips between suggesting a couple and a single man in your second link but seems to go with the single man eventually:

“As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adam’s soul was infused directly by God.”

This contradicts what you summarised in your earlier post where he still maintains an original couple, which as we have seen is not tenable as the female MRCA and male counterpart did not live at the same time.

But above he is describing this Adam as our Most Recent Common Ancestor. Because we all now have a soul which we inherited from him. Now it is logically impossible to have more than one MRCA so is he suggesting that Y chromosomal Adam and the one that had the soul from God are the one and the same?

 

[cena]

Deciding whether to get pregnant or not is not usually a difficult call for most couples. You don’t think about the potential child that you are avoiding having if you have sex when using contraception.

However, if you do become pregnant, then there is most definitely a potential child, literally in the making. Consequently I would imagine the decision to end the pregnancy as opposed to not starting it in the first place, is a more difficult decision.

I would prefer that all women had the opportunity to decide when they became pregnant so that they wouldn’t have to make the call after the fact. I don’t think that any woman I know would take the decision lightly and I would prefer it if they didn’t have to make it. Consequently, I would prefer it if there were no abortions.

Notwithstanding that in no way whatsoever would I support any move that would result in women being told by the state that if they are pregnant then they are obliged to continue with it.

There are natural ways of not getting pregnant (the methods are called Natural Family Planning or NFP). It basically involves having intercourse when the woman is least fertile, I’ve heard it has a higher success rate than condoms but I don’t know for sure.
Giving birth ends a pregnancy. Abortions are where a so called “doctor” injects the fetus with poison, thus killing it, and then removing the fetus in pieces. Abortions ends a life. The state should not support something that brings harm or in this case kills someone for the ease of another. Again, ending a pregnancy in this case is deliberately killing a living human.

 

[cena]

No problem.

In the link to your earlier post, there are other links, one to page by biologos, which is summarised thus:

“So that’s the situation we are in with regard to the human population size in ancient history. There was a bottleneck. There were likely fewer people alive during that time than the number of fans attending a typical NHL hockey game. (We don’t know if they were all together in one village, of course, but the total was small.) However, it was not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.”

Can’t argue with that. A few thousand people and most definitely not two. However, going to Fesser’s blog (the first to which you linked) he says:

'There are two main issues that have come up in the discussion sparked by John’s article. First, is modern biology consistent with the claim that the human race began with a single pair à la the biblical story of Adam and Eve? Second, is modern biology consistent with the claim that this pair transmitted the stain of original sin to their descendents via propagation rather than mere imitation? The answer to both questions is “Yes.” ’

Now I don’t see any theological nuances here whereby what he is saying could be misinterpreted. He asks if there was, biologically speaking, a single pair and answers ‘yes’, in direct opposition to the biologos quote.

However, he does go on to suggest that just one pair were imbued with a soul by God:

“Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.”

But Flynn, to whom Fesser links as back up to his theory, suggests that as doctrine only need include the male, it was only the man that was given a soul (because as he realises and perhaps what Fesser doesn’t, our most recent common ancestor on the maternal line lived at a different time to that on the paternal line).

Fesser, slips between suggesting a couple and a single man in your second link but seems to go with the single man eventually:

“As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adam’s soul was infused directly by God.”

This contradicts what you summarised in your earlier post where he still maintains an original couple, which as we have seen is not tenable as the female MRCA and male counterpart did not live at the same time.

But above he is describing this Adam as our Most Recent Common Ancestor. Because we all now have a soul which we inherited from him. Now it is logically impossible to have more than one MRCA so is he suggesting that Y chromosomal Adam and the one that had the soul from God are the one and the same?

One of the popes said it was okay to believe in evolution (it is not contrary to Catholic doctrine) but we had to believe there were two original parents.

 

[jimmy]

Deciding whether to get pregnant or not is not usually a difficult call for most couples. You don’t think about the potential child that you are avoiding having if you have sex when using contraception.

However, if you do become pregnant, then there is most definitely a potential child, literally in the making. Consequently I would imagine the decision to end the pregnancy as opposed to not starting it in the first place, is a more difficult decision.

I would prefer that all women had the opportunity to decide when they became pregnant so that they wouldn’t have to make the call after the fact. I don’t think that any woman I know would take the decision lightly and I would prefer it if they didn’t have to make it. Consequently, I would prefer it if there were no abortions.

Notwithstanding that in no way whatsoever would I support any move that would result in women being told by the state that if they are pregnant then they are obliged to continue with it.

So your reason for not liking abortion is that it is a hard choice for a woman to make?

 

[Al_Moritz]

No problem.

In the link to your earlier post, there are other links, one to page by biologos, which is summarised thus:

“So that’s the situation we are in with regard to the human population size in ancient history. There was a bottleneck. There were likely fewer people alive during that time than the number of fans attending a typical NHL hockey game. (We don’t know if they were all together in one village, of course, but the total was small.) However, it was not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.”

Can’t argue with that. A few thousand people and most definitely not two.

Indeed, we agree.

However, going to Fesser’s blog (the first to which you linked) he says:

'There are two main issues that have come up in the discussion sparked by John’s article. First, is modern biology consistent with the claim that the human race began with a single pair à la the biblical story of Adam and Eve? Second, is modern biology consistent with the claim that this pair transmitted the stain of original sin to their descendents via propagation rather than mere imitation? The answer to both questions is “Yes.” ’

Now I don’t see any theological nuances here whereby what he is saying could be misinterpreted. He asks if there was, biologically speaking, a single pair and answers ‘yes’, in direct opposition to the biologos quote.

No, there is no opposition to the Biologos quote. You misunderstand Feser while at the same time you introduce a confusion in terminology. Note my emphases in the quote from your post. There is a crucial difference between “is modern biology consistent with”, where “consistent with” means consistent with theological monogenism, and “biologically speaking” (your phrase). Biologically speaking there cannot have been single first pair. So no, Feser does not answer ‘yes’ to the question if there was a single biological pair – on the contrary, he affirms the science that biologically speaking the population bottleneck was never less than about 10,000.

However, he does go on to suggest that just one pair were imbued with a soul by God:

“Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.”

That’s the point, precisely.

But Flynn, to whom Fesser links as back up to his theory, suggests that as doctrine only need include the male, it was only the man that was given a soul (because as he realises and perhaps what Fesser doesn’t, our most recent common ancestor on the maternal line lived at a different time to that on the paternal line).

Fesser, slips between suggesting a couple and a single man in your second link but seems to go with the single man eventually:

“As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adam’s soul was infused directly by God.”

This contradicts what you summarised in your earlier post where he still maintains an original couple, which as we have seen is not tenable as the female MRCA and male counterpart did not live at the same time.

I think that Feser implies Eve with Adam. At this point I ignore Flynn (I have read his whole blog post though), because it only obfuscates things.

But above he is describing this Adam as our Most Recent Common Ancestor. Because we all now have a soul which we inherited from him. Now it is logically impossible to have more than one MRCA so is he suggesting that Y chromosomal Adam and the one that had the soul from God are the one and the same?

I don’t think that Y chromosomal Adam has anything to do with the first Adam with a soul. The former is about a biological question, the latter about a metaphysical question.

That is the whole point that Feser makes: the human biology is one thing, the human metaphysical nature another. That is why theological monogenism and biological polygenism are compatible. Again, see my summary of Feser’s position.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, probably Feser should have used “compatible with” instead of “consistent with”. I assume he wanted to make a more forceful point by using the latter phrase, but a loss of clarity may have been a side effect.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think that Y chromosomal Adam has anything to do with the first Adam with a soul. The former is about a biological question, the latter about a metaphysical question.

That is the whole point that Feser makes: the human biology is one thing, the human metaphysical nature another. That is why theological monogenism and biological polygenism are compatible. Again, see my summary of Feser’s position.

Then it’s the difference between the biological and metaphysical aspects that is confusing me. As I don’t in fact see a difference.

Let’s stick with Adam. Fesser says God gave this one man a soul and that that man became human, for lack of a better description, from that point (physical, metaphysical, theological, it makes no difference - let’s accept that as a fact). And because we all have a soul, everyone alive today can trace our lineage back to this man. He is a common ancestor to us all. It cannot be the case that his lineage died out unless there are people alive today without souls. If there are not, then he is the Most Recent Common Ancestor, by definition.

Now there was also a male in the past from whom all males are descended - Y Chromosome Adam. He can’t have lived earlier than God’s Adam or he wouldn’t be the MRCA. If he lived after God’s Adam then every single line of descent after God’s Adam would have had to have died out except for the direct paternal line between God’s Adam and Y-Chromosome Adam.

I’m not sure what the odds of that would have been but I would have great difficulty in believing it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Now there was also a male in the past from whom all males are descended - Y Chromosome Adam. He can’t have lived earlier than God’s Adam or he wouldn’t be the MRCA.

Why could he not have lived earlier? All biological humans (with or without soul) at the time of a bottleneck were descended from Y Chromosome Adam, who might have been the source of a much larger population before the bottleneck. A (more or less considerable) subset of the biological humans around the time of the bottleneck then established the metaphysical line of humans, as described by Feser.

If he lived after God’s Adam then every single line of descent after God’s Adam would have had to have died out except for the direct paternal line between God’s Adam and Y-Chromosome Adam.

I’m not sure what the odds of that would have been but I would have great difficulty in believing it.

Yes, that seems an improbable scenario.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From the Encylical Humani Generis

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
2. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
3. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

From the Blog " Fully Catholic, " May 5, 2013

And listen to what the Catechism states, Paragraph # 375, “The Church … instructs that our first parents, Adam and Eve …” No mention of a myth here.

Paragraph # 404: “By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve dedicated a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do misconceptions dedicate individual sins?

Adam and Eve are not myths. Genesis does not include misconception or legend. That is Church teaching. Challenge anybody, who instructs differently, to produce their sources from a magisterial paper. They can not do it. They can, nevertheless, produce numerous books and posts by “theologians”. Not good enough.

From the address of Pope Pius 12 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Nov 30, 1941, ( as discussed in The Catholic Catechism by John A Hardon, paper back, Dubleday, 1981, p. 93)

Three things must be held as " certinly attested " as definitely Revealed by God in Genesis.

1. The essential superiority of man to other animals by reason of man’s spiritual soul
2. The making of the first woman, in some way, from the first man.
3. That the immediate father or progenitor of man was anything other than a complete human being. That is, the imposibility that the first man was the son of an animal, generated by the latter in the proper sense of the term. " Only from a man can another man descend, whom he can call father and progenitor.( ibid )

I think these items should put the wild speculations of Flynn to rest. Eve came from Adam, and God created her soul just like he did Adam’s and from these two the whole human race has descended, bottle necks or no!!!

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

Why could he not have lived earlier? All biological humans (with or without soul) at the time of a bottleneck were descended from Y Chromosome Adam, who might have been the source of a much larger population before the bottleneck. A (more or less considerable) subset of the biological humans around the time of the bottleneck then established the metaphysical line of humans, as described by Feser.

So it’s not credible he was born after. But I f he was born before God’s Adam then there is a direct link between everyone today and that man and ALSO between God’s Adam and everyone today.

So it makes no sense to talk of that earlier man as the MRCA. He’s not the Most Recent. God’s Adam is. God’s Adam, the first man with a soul must be the MRCA.

To be honest, I’m not sure of the implications of that. If it’s correct then, at the least, why wouldn’t Fesser or Flynn simply state it as being the case?

 

[PRmerger]

So your reason for not liking abortion is that it is a hard choice for a woman to make?

I think his discomfort comes from the idea that it ends the life of a “potential human being”.

One has to wonder when it becomes an “actual human being”.

At birth? Well, that can’t make something human. Or make it have value. What changes ontologically in this being at the moment of birth? Answer: nothing.

At viability? Well, that can’t make something human. For that would mean that 30 years ago a 27 week old fetus wasn’t an actual human person. But today it is an actual human person. And that would make our value/humanity/dignity dependent upon…technology. And that’s clearly absurd.

The only other answer is: it becomes an actual human being…at conception.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think a world without religion has the potential to have an even higher

moral ground than a world with religion.

:nope: :dts:

I disagree.

First, because people can and will understand and see that they can love and be good to each other without needing the threat of eternal punishment if they do not.

 

[jimmy]

When it comes down to it everyone has a god. An atheist society would end up with the state as the god. If God doesn’t set your principles, then the state will.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

A world without religion would have a massive impact on the arts and culture. It’s amazing when one listens to modern pop songs how much religious imagery many of them have. Without religion and its concepts our secular arts would be greatly impoverished. A very small point, but a real one

 

[Bradski]

If God doesn’t set your principles, then the state will.

Who told you that, Jim?

 

[tonyrey]

Who told you that, Jim?

There has to be a modicum of law and order in any civilised society, Brad. The alternative is a “state” like Somalia…

 

[Bradski]

There has to be a modicum of law and order in any civilised society, Brad. The alternative is a “state” like Somalia…

Tony, you spend too much time answering questions that nobody has asked and asking questions that nobody is interested in answering.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, you spend too much time answering questions that nobody has asked and asking questions that nobody is interested in answering.

Amusing but false!

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, you spend too much time answering questions that nobody has asked and asking questions that nobody is interested in answering.

Amusing but false!

Do you deny that there has to be a modicum of law and order in any civilised society?

If not why is it irrelevant or insignificant with regard to a world without religion?

 

[tonyrey]

A world without religion would have a massive impact on the arts and culture. It’s amazing when one listens to modern pop songs how much religious imagery many of them have. Without religion and its concepts our secular arts would be greatly impoverished. A very small point, but a real one

Even the enemies of religion would have nothing to attack! It often seems to be their main driving force…