Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Arandur]

please state the Church’s position in your comment, “It kind of bothers me when people talk about an absolute prohibition against considering polygenism, because I think it’s an exaggeration of the Church’s position.”

It’s the idea that the “Church’s position” is so cut and dry, and by that I mean particularly with regards to excerpts from the Catechism and Humani Generis. For instance, you added a quote from the latter to attempt to bring more absolute language to bear than the previous quote from the same document that I provided. Allow me to highlight in red the parts of your quote from being truly absolute (but rather leaving the Magisterium room for movement, even if the larger body of the faithful are advised against it):

It is section 35 which has the absolute language.

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.

“in the case of clearly proved facts”
“If such conjectural opinions”

This strikes me as essentially the same position that the Church (wisely) took against Galileo. Copernicus never claimed his hypothesis as fact when he could not prove it; Galileo had not proved it and yet he claimed it as fact. Copernicus never claimed an opposition (direct or indirect) to a revealed doctrine (such as the reliability of the Scriptures or the centrality of the world and humanity in God’s plan). Galileo did.

In assuming an absolute ban, we do what people think we did with Galileo–suppress science. In fact, Humani Generis takes pains to point out that the primary error is where some scientists take their science and start making philosophical and theological statements based on it, denying God, for example. That is the more relevant context for paragraph 35, and is analogous to the Galileo affair (vs. Copernicus).

I’d rather not repeat the popular scandal of Galileo, and I don’t think the Church would either, hence the caution.

IF certain aspects of various sciences become more than mere hypotheses (things have come a long way since Pope Pius XII, as acknowledged by his successors), and IF there is no conflict with revealed doctrine (a point yet open to discussion), then such science could be used to inform the faith. Both aim at truth, and true science illuminates us with the revelation in God’s own Creation.

That said, a personal Adam and Eve are hardly ruled out by science, with or without a concurrent population of contemporaries.

For instance, you noted that while Eve apparently committed the sin of eating the fruit first, and then tempted Adam, Adam is seen as the primary sinner, the one primarily responsible. Now, you could argue that Adam actually sinned first somehow (like by not defending Eve from the Serpent, as Scott Hahn suggests), or you could take what I think is a more traditional approach and accept that Adam, as a patriarch, husband, head of the family and so forth, actually has primary responsibility because of his primacy of authority, and that it is by this authority that all his descendants are similarly afflicted.

Similarly, the sins of kings and patriarchs throughout Salvation History (or the sanctity thereof) affect those under their authority, and whole armies and kingdoms suffer for the sin of a few–even if those few are not the leaders. Thus there can be guilt by authority and responsibility, and there can be corporate sin–the whole body of a people guilty in some way for the sins of some within that body. Just as Adam assumes primary guilt before Eve (though he succumbed after her to the same sin), some of these other examples of disobedience may have implications on what happened in Eden.

 

[grannymh]

In fairness,
please state the Church’s position in your comment, “It kind of bothers me when people talk about an absolute prohibition against considering polygenism, because I think it’s an exaggeration of the Church’s position.”

I am very interested in discussing this “exaggeration” regarding the first human gardener who had a personal relationship with our Creator. Since there are so many church-type positions, especially on BioLogos, I really do need to know what Church position you are using.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

It’s the idea that the “Church’s position” is so cut and dry, and by that I mean particularly with regards to excerpts from the Catechism and Humani Generis.

What is it which is so cut and dry?

In regard to Humani Generis, #35. This is Church-speak for situations in which science intersects with faith. That is probably why it is often avoided by those who wish to change Catholic doctrines regarding the reality of Adam and Eve. It is so much easier to skip down to #37 and promote the sound-bite – “Now it is in no way apparent”.

In order for truth to occur, science has to be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines have to be properly understood.

May I, again, respectfully ask you for the “Church position” so that I can properly understand it. Maybe the problem is that there are a number of Catholic doctrines involved with the two sole parents of humankind. I can understand that and so I ask for the entire position of the Catholic Church in relationship with the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Arandur]

What is it which is so cut and dry?

What I was taking issue with was the statement I often hear that the Church’s position is that no form of polygenism is possible. I was pointing out that it’s not quite that cut and dry.

In regard to Humani Generis, #35. This is Church-speak for situations in which science intersects with faith.

Yes, similar to the caution around advocating heliocentrism without proof and setting it against doctrine. That’s why I used that analogy. That doesn’t mean that the science is ruled out entirely, just that we must proceed with caution and not make rash, premature judgments when positions are unproven and the theological implications have not been fully considered.

That is probably why it is often avoided by those who wish to change Catholic doctrines regarding the reality of Adam and Eve. It is so much easier to skip down to #37 and promote the sound-bite – “Now it is in no way apparent”.

That’s just the thing–the doctrine need not be “changed,” it may just be that we come to greater understanding of it through the evidence God gives us of His Creation.

In order for truth to occur, science has to be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines have to be properly understood.

Right, truth is discovered at the intersection of God’s natural revelation and God’s Divine revelation. Your statement is not an absolute support for any one position right now. The science may or may not have been “conducted properly.” Catholic doctrines may or may not be “properly understood.” It could be that science is missing some major observations that would significantly change the theories. It could be that science has the dates way off. It could also be that the science is pretty accurate.

It could be that the interpretation of doctrine that Adam and Eve had to be the only humans in existence at our origin, without any other human-like creatures around to contend with. It could also be that this interpretation of doctrine is not entirely accurate, and that the Holy Spirit is now guiding us into a deeper understanding of our origins.

We often don’t get anything definitive, no sure declaration from the Church defining what the Holy Spirit has revealed (both through natural and supernatural revelation), and until well into a crisis questioning some doctrine. So I expect this to play out quite a bit more.

My main point is that we should not be surprised, nor consider it a crisis of faith, if the Church comes to understand something closer to polygenism–for instance, that Adam and Eve were real persons, but possibly within a community or population (perhaps the head of one); or that they had authority or spiritual fatherhood over others; or that they existed alongside human-like beings and possibly their children even interbred with them, “leavening” the population–possibly the meaning of the “sons of heaven” mating with the “daughters of man.” Or possibly some other situation.

Yet we’re setting ourselves up for a crisis of faith by positioning a certain, possibly errant understanding of Church doctrine against growing scientific discovery which may be accurate.

May I, again, respectfully ask you for the “Church position” so that I can properly understand it. Maybe the problem is that there are a number of Catholic doctrines involved with the two sole parents of humankind. I can understand that and so I ask for the entire position of the Catholic Church in relationship with the first three chapters of Genesis.

I was referring primarily to Humani Generis, which we’ve already discussed. If you want to get more deeply into other aspects of Genesis, we could delve into the Scripture and Catechism and other documents, but that’s not what I was referring to.

Again, I was mostly taking issue with a premature determination some people seem to be making, absolutism about some doctrines–or some scientific hypotheses–that may not be as well-defined as they think, or may not actually require such an interpretation.

For instance, for Christ to take up our sins and be our sole Redeemer need not require a singular original fault; he makes up for our many faults, after all, and takes upon himself the “sins of the nation.” Similarly, Original Sin need not be just the result of a singular personal sin, but could also involve corporate sin or sin borne by one with authority and responsibility over others (precedent of which in Scripture I have previously mentioned). The common Catholic “both/and” rather than “either/or” position would seem to lend itself to a deeper, multivalent understanding of Adam, Eve, and Original Sin, without excluding that which has been commonly understood from a face-value, surface reading of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

What I was taking issue with was the statement I often hear that the Church’s position is that no form of polygenism is possible. I was pointing out that it’s not quite that cut and dry.

Given the scientific position of polygenism --please recall that the domain of natural science is the material/physical world of decomposing human anatomies-- polygenism, in itself, cannot address the original relationship between humanity and divinity. Thus, polygenism, belonging to natural science, basically omits human’s rational, intellective soul. While polygenism is biologically possible, one must look at the whole picture which includes human nature. The Catholic Church is firm in its doctrine that human nature uniquely unites both the material world and the spiritual world. (Source: CCC 355-367)

When one follows the path of polygenism, as it is known today, one will see that the ultimate conclusion is that our spiritual soul is no longer necessary. Again, recall that natural science, including polygenism, is in the material/physical world which means that the soul of a human is considered as a material thing that dies with the human anatomy.

Yes, similar to the caution around advocating heliocentrism without proof and setting it against doctrine. That’s why I used that analogy. That doesn’t mean that the science is ruled out entirely, just that we must proceed with caution and not make rash, premature judgments when positions are unproven and the theological implications have not been fully considered.

There have been miles of posts demonstrating that heliocentrism knowledge belongs to the material/physical universe. Obviously, high-ranking clergy in any century can express their knowledge about the material/physical universe; but those free speech conclusions are not automatically turned into Catholic doctrines. That is the real caution when it comes to elevating natural science to the area of faith and morals.

As for theological implications not being fully considered. The Catholic consideration of the theological implications of one man committing one original sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with our Creator began with St. Paul and has continued to this day via the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

That’s just the thing–the doctrine need not be “changed,” it may just be that we come to greater understanding of it through the evidence God gives us of His Creation.

Actually, the Catholic Church does look at the evidence of God’s creation which is in the material /physical world. In this world, polygenism is part of the development of plants and animals. Polygenism should not be applied to the spiritual soul.

Legitimately or not, current proposals for the human origin of spiritual concepts like a god-figure are based on a type of polygenism model which says that all members of a society contribute (name removed by moderator)ut to god-like concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil. Readers should recognize this as “relativism”.

Natural science is a gift from God. It continues to benefit society especially in the medical arena. I have a deep respect for scientists. Nonetheless, some, not all, interpreters of natural science are leading people away from Divine Revelation as expressed in the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

 

[Arandur]

Ah, I see what the problem is, why we keep seeming to talk across each other.

You are targeting a materialistic philosophy that is attempting to explain away or replace spiritual things (the human spirit), or to posit a material origin for the same. You’re not talking about a “scientific position of polygenism” there, because science is only speaking about material human biology. We need not conflate it with a philosophy.

I am talking about no such thing. I don’t think anyone here was ever talking about that either. Please take a look back at the posts; I’d be interested in a response to what I actually posted, not in a criticism of some other idea that I’ve never advocated.

Of course we humans are a synthesis of body, soul, and spirit. Of course that immaterial spirit is generated by God apart from material means–that no material cause can be found for it. However, we do see the expression of that spirit leave traces as it manifests in our physical world–like, possibly, those cave paintings that you mention. In other words, the products of mankind that are the result of our spiritual souls (coming from the powers of rationality, self-awareness, spirituality).

I am interested in where and when the evidence of true humans has left itself in our history, because I am interested in the history of my ancestors and in what else is going on in our Scriptures (primarily Genesis, here), given the context of those times, since context helps illumine the meaning and intent.

When I speak of “polygenism” or “monogenism,” I am not speaking at all about the origin of the human spirit. For in your narrow definition of these terms, and with the materialistic philosophy you’ve (I think unnecessarily) attached them to, neither could you say that “monogenism” is correct, for this does not speak to the origin of the human spirit, either.

What I am interested in is what all was going on in the Garden, with Adam and Eve. Did they exist at a time where no other human-like creatures existed? Did they exist concurrently with such creatures (and if so, a whole host of questions regarding their relation to them and the extinction of the others)? Did they exist within a community of these other creatures (and if so, a host of other questions)?

Pre-historic evidence seems to be pretty extensive that other human-like creatures would have existed at a similar time, depending on when you place God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Are these other creatures referenced in the Bible, perhaps in relation to “giants,” “nephelim,” or “daughters of men”? Do they perhaps linger in our human cultures and psyche as things like “trolls,” “dwarves,” “fey,” or similar?

It all starts from those questions of “when” and (to a lesser extent) “where” you place Adam and Eve.

Actually, the Catholic Church does look at the evidence of God’s creation which is in the material /physical world. In this world, polygenism is part of the development of plants and animals. Polygenism should not be applied to the spiritual soul.

Why the “actually?” I’m saying the same thing. . I’m saying that the Church recognizes that part of revelation is God’s own Creation. And note again that nowhere am I (nor do I think need anyone) consider some materialistic philosophy’s explanation for the origin of the human spirit.

 

[grannymh]

For instance, for Christ to take up our sins and be our sole Redeemer need not require a singular original fault; …

“… for Christ to take up our sins and be our sole Redeemer need not require a singular original fault…” – is the point of view that excludes the divinity of Christ. There are plenty of religions that consider Christ is a human prophet among human prophets. A human who dies for the “sins of the nation” just like any other human who wants to offer a sacrifice as atonement for sins. There are plenty of humans in ancient times who sacrificed animals and occasionally humans to appease some god or gods.

So what is the reason for declaring Jesus Christ as True God and True Man?

 

[Arandur]

“… for Christ to take up our sins and be our sole Redeemer need not require a singular original fault…” – is the point of view that excludes the divinity of Christ… A human who dies for the “sins of the nation” just like any other human who wants to offer a sacrifice as atonement for sins. There are plenty of humans in ancient times who sacrificed animals and occasionally humans to appease some god or gods.

So what is the reason for declaring Jesus Christ as True God and True Man?

I’m not seeing how you are getting from “need not require a singular original fault” to “excludes the divinity of Christ.” There’s a leap there that I’m not following, especially when you link it to other, more common human sacrifices. Essential to the Catholic understanding of Christ’s sacrifice is that all other sacrifices are insufficient; it takes the Divine Person to make a perfect sacrifice. So ANY human fault requires Christ to be True God and True Man.

Also, the part that you stripped out from the quotes was my inclusion that the fault that Jesus died for could be BOTH a single, original, personal sin AND a corporate sin or sin attributed to one with authority and responsibility over another. I never excluded the “singular original sin;” since it seems that your statement comes from a premise that I’m excluding a singular original sin, you can rest assured: I am making no such exclusion.

 

[grannymh]

Ah, I see what the problem is, why we keep seeming to talk across each other.

May I gently point out that post 44 is dedicated to bringing readers (plural intended) up to speed with the scientific position known as polygenism.

I did refer to the “philosophy” of relativism as being recognizable. If someone wishes to question that observation, I would be happy to learn another viewpoint. However or whatever philosophies are referred to, the bottom line is that current applications of the polygenism model are ignoring the presence of a rational, intellective spiritual soul as inherent to human nature.

 

[grannymh]

May I gently point out that post 44 is dedicated to bringing readers (plural intended) up to speed with the scientific position known as polygenism.

I did refer to the “philosophy” of relativism as being recognizable. If someone wishes to question that observation, I would be happy to learn another viewpoint. However or whatever philosophies are referred to, the bottom line is that current applications of the polygenism model are ignoring the presence of a rational, intellective spiritual soul as inherent to human nature.

My apology. I have to rescind the invitation above.

When reviewing the OP, I can see that it is reasonable to discuss Adam and Eve as real people according to Catholicism. Maybe the relationship between the first real person and God is proper to the OP, maybe not.

Nonetheless, I have sincere doubts that my personal discussion on monogenism and the dangers of polygenism is proper here. I do realize that the fact that the original Original Sin demands the divinity of Christ is one of the least known points of the monogenism doctrine.

However, I will end here because it is not my intention to derail this interesting thread.

 

[Arandur]

May I gently point out that post 44 is dedicated to bringing readers (plural intended) up to speed with the scientific position known as polygenism.

I did refer to the “philosophy” of relativism as being recognizable. If someone wishes to question that observation, I would be happy to learn another viewpoint. However or whatever philosophies are referred to, the bottom line is that current applications of the polygenism model are ignoring the presence of a rational, intellective spiritual soul as inherent to human nature.

Our problem is still one of definitions and premises.

You asserted a definition of “polygenism” that includes a materialistic statement about the human spiritual soul–either that it doesn’t exist, or that it arose or consists in material. I have not seen that as part of any definition of polygenism, but rather, that seems to be an extension of philosophical evolutionary/Darwinian beliefs, which were never in question here.

There are often many definitions of these things, and I have been imprecise in my own. Wikipedia lists some definitions, making the primary distinctions of “scientific” and “theological” polygenism.

By that source, “scientific” polygenism is the idea that the physical human species arose from many places and populations separately–this does not seem to be a consensus view, anymore. Monogenesis (the “Out of Africa” concept) origin actually seems to be more of a consensus view–but this still includes the common understanding that some original population was involved, not just a single pair.

Note that there is no mention of a materialistic explanation of or replacement for the human soul. That’s because that would be a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

Also by that source, “theological” polygenism has to do with one or more theories that there were more people involved than just Adam and Eve–though not precluding the existence of Adam and Eve (many still include them). This differs from the scientific definitions because it addresses its focus to a single pair, whereas the scientific approach is concerned with human races, and doesn’t mention a single pair.

I am referring to the category of “theological” polygenism–which can include many possibilities and variations. Pope Pius XII was addressing this, as well (and Humani Generis has been the primary context for this discussion), but he narrows those possibilities and variations down to just a subset of two:

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.

Thus, our pope was taking issue with the idea that there existed other “true men” after Adam who were not in some way descended from him, or that there was no Adam at all but rather that term represents a certain number of first parents.

I’m saying that there are also possibilities other than those two that would take into account Adam and Eve as real, singular persons, but also incorporate our historical evidence of other human-like creatures and the genetic understanding that a species exists as a population rather than just as an individual.

I’d like to toss out the materialistic considerations as separate from this discussion and focus more on “theological” polygenism.

Actually, I’m not even yet much concerned about that, but am rather interested in what else was going on during the early years of our history, during the time of Adam and Eve and their more immediate descendants.

 

[Arandur]

Yeah, I kinda derailed the thread, too. It got off on tangents that I had intended to discuss on another thread that I had generated: Genesis and Pre-history

 

[grannymh]

I was wondering how Adam and Eve were supposed to take care of the Garden:
did they have to tell the animals what to do, or did they have to make some tools …

Realistically, I would answer that Adam and Eve had to both tell the animals what to do and also make a variety of tools. I am thinking of a yoke for the oxen. Being real humans, Adam and Eve would naturally think of making garden work easier. Substituting oxen power for cultivating by hand would probably be first on their to-do list.

Thinking of Adam and Eve as real humans with a nature basically the same as our wounded one can lead to all kinds of interesting questions. Did they enjoy music? Did they ask God for rain? How did they show their love for our Creator?

 

[Arandur]

I don’t know what tools they would have needed in the state of Original Justice. Food being abundant and easy to acquire (everything created for them), and given the stipulations of the Curse, they needn’t have cultivated crops.

That’s not to say they wouldn’t want to. I think they were allowed to explore creation and do with it what essentially what they pleased, so long as it was not sinful.

I think they must have had great wonder and reverence for what God had created. I do find it interesting to consider how they would have expressed their love for God. I view them as very childlike in wonder and play; having a simplicity of joy and natural reliance in the providence of their Father.

 

[Ion]

Luke 17:6 "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

I think Adam and Eve were capable of this…