Adam & Logic

[Offdoodykcrn]

Not that my opinion matters, I’ll throw in my ‘two cents…’

• I do not believe the literal story of Adam and Eve, I see it rather as an allegorical answer to explain that which we cannot know.
• I don’t believe eating fruit from a special tree could possibly constitute original sin. I think sin is simply one side of the coin of ‘free will’.
• I’m still struggling with the concept of original sin, although this internal debate does not, in any way shake my faith that Jesus is the son of God and died for all of our sins, for which I am thankful.
• I don’t put near as much stock in the Old Testament as I do in the New Testament, and the Gospels hold more weight for me than the many letters the Apostles wrote to new members of the faith.

I’m probably wrong on several of these points (if not all), but I do look forward to researching the answers in Heaven’s library.

 

[Bradski]

Thank you for joining this thread.

Thank you.

With respect to this “ban”…

I’d suggest that the reason The Theory Which Cannot Be Discussed (TTWCBD) is banned is because people tend to get a little excitable when it’s being discussed. I don’t think (although I’m willing to be corrected) that there is a ban on mentioning it in passing. Which, with such a subject as you have raised, would be quite difficult.

However, Pope Pius XII clearly pointed out that natural science also intersects or collides with another basic Catholic doctrine monogenism which is that humankind descended from Adam as the first human parent along with his spouse. While this foundational doctrine in Humani Generis has been debated in Catholic circles, it has not been overturned.

I think that this is most definitely a collision, not an intersection. Quoting from Humani Generis:

‘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’.

I cannot for the life of me see how there cannot be a serious disconnect between that statement and the fact that the Church readily accepts TTWCBD. They are quite clearly contradictory.

My personal policy is to respect worldviews which are different from mine.

I do try myself. I’m afraid that I’m not always successful.

 

[grannymh]

The problem with the scientific method is weather can be applied to all problems or not.
The intervention of God can not be considered while studying the law of gravity, but I don’t think it is the same if you think about the first humans. If you start with the supposition that there was no intervention, well you have to end up in some sort of story like the one I have mentioned from that documentary. Also in historical matters, how comes nobody is interested in how a religion was developed ? For example, would be reasonable to belive that the story of Jericho was invented 300 years after the event of destruction, from nowhere, all of a sudden? Wouldn’t that compromise the whole Bible? With the scientific method thats the only alternative. Something is missing.

I have to add something. We can’t imagine the possibilities open for an almighty person. Better this way of science than to have scientists imaginig all sort of things on behalf of God. Anyway, we end up with “invisible pink unicorns” whether or not science consider God’s intervention in some matters.

For the benefit of the logical approach to human origin -----

We need to explore what the scientific method is.

This link is part of a high school introduction to science.
batesvilleinschools.com/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

While this link is a simplified approach, it does have some key information which is necessary for this thread.

There is a quiz on this link which readers should try.

Re: How does religion develop? Post 5, page 1, above has the foundation for the development of religion. It accounts for the beginning of Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Not that my opinion matters, I’ll throw in my ‘two cents…’

Your opinion matters because it helps define areas which need to be discussed.

• I do not believe the literal story of Adam and Eve, I see it rather as an allegorical answer to explain that which we cannot know.

One needs to take a both - and approach to the first three chapters of Genesis.

While there are figurative elements in these three chapters, there is also Catholic doctrine in the same three chapters.

Granted, that the first three chapters of Genesis do not explain everything in depth. That explanation is found in the teachings of Jesus Christ, first in the Gospels and then in the subsequent Book of Acts and in the instructions given by the first followers of Jesus Christ.

• I don’t believe eating fruit from a special tree could possibly constitute original sin. I think sin is simply one side of the coin of ‘free will’.

You are right – that is a bit of a stretch.

The eating of the forbidden fruit is the outward or visible disobedience of Adam. This disobedience is related to the fact that Adam, the created creature, had to live in free submission to God, the Creator. In other words, Adam could not live on his own volition (free will). The real temptation is found in these words “you will be like gods” (Genesis 3: 1-7)

• I’m still struggling with the concept of original sin, although this internal debate does not, in any way shake my faith that Jesus is the son of God and died for all of our sins, for which I am thankful.

Welcome to the struggling group. By the way, my badge is “original ninny”.

This is due to the tiny link at the bottom of post 21.[CAF Badges (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=775512)

• I don’t put near as much stock in the Old Testament as I do in the New Testament, and the Gospels hold more weight for me than the many letters the Apostles wrote to new members of the faith.

Please go back to this post’s first response. Do not pass “go”.

• I’m probably wrong on several of these points (if not all), but I do look forward to researching the answers in Heaven’s library.

My books from Heaven’s library are overdue. I believe the fine is purgatory.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
However, Pope Pius XII clearly pointed out that natural science also intersects or collides with another basic Catholic doctrine monogenism which is that humankind descended from Adam as the first human parent along with his spouse. While this foundational doctrine in Humani Generis has been debated in Catholic circles, it has not been overturned.

I think that this is most definitely a collision, not an intersection. Quoting from Humani Generis:

‘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’.

I cannot for the life of me see how there cannot be a serious disconnect between that statement and the fact that the Church readily accepts TTWCBD. They are quite clearly contradictory.

As for “clearly contradictory” maybe yes, maybe no.

That theory from the famous naturalist in the 19th century has expanded like weeds in my garden. My personal heroes in the 20th century are Motoo Kimura and Carl Woese. In this century, I like John Hawks just because he is an honest, nice guy. I also like Ann Gauger who views science realistically.
What I am pointing out is that a lot has developed since the original 19th century.

This is a link that I just discovered on Google.
darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html

I have only read the first paragraph. Amazingly, I found the key statement which explains why some areas of natural science collide with some Catholic doctrines. It is:
“In further works Darwin demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree not kind.”
The word “kind” is also known as species.

My goal is to eventually demonstrate the [philosophical] fallacy of the above quoted statement. There is a difference between humans and non-humans which is why the Catholic Church views natural science theories in two separate ways . In this century, it is not possible to lump together the theories of the 19th century and early 20th century with the theories of the 21st century and late 20th century.

Yes, it is a problem of terminology and semantics.

 

[Ion]

Not that my opinion matters, I’ll throw in my ‘two cents…’

• I do not believe the literal story of Adam and Eve, I see it rather as an allegorical answer to explain that which we cannot know.
• I don’t believe eating fruit from a special tree could possibly constitute original sin. I think sin is simply one side of the coin of ‘free will’.
• I’m still struggling with the concept of original sin, although this internal debate does not, in any way shake my faith that Jesus is the son of God and died for all of our sins, for which I am thankful.
• I don’t put near as much stock in the Old Testament as I do in the New Testament, and the Gospels hold more weight for me than the many letters the Apostles wrote to new members of the faith.

I’m probably wrong on several of these points (if not all), but I do look forward to researching the answers in Heaven’s library.

God spent with Moses 40 days on Mount Sinai. Plenty of time to get the details, so he didn’t need any allegory. Harder for me to imagine an Adam and Eve created then left alone to find a way to survive, and through sin and fight for surviaval there will result a pure man (???); Creation for the purpose of survival? It is not reasonable. Even harder to imagine some sort of philosophical debate resulting in Adam’s and Eve decision regarding the development of humanity in a being with superior capabilities. Scientific method says: where is the tree? show me the tree. You have no tree, then it must be an allegory. I think this is an abuse of the scientific method. And regarding Adam’s sin, why an allegory instead of the real events?

 

[hicetnunc]

If you go back to your grandmother, she obviously shared your rationality. And your ability to reason and form abstract concepts. As did her grandmother and hers before her and so on. At some point, you will reach a direct maternal ancestor that didn’t have these abilities. Because she wasn’t human.

The Catholic Church accepts this because it has no problem with evolution. But it seems it has made it difficult for itself in also trying to hold onto a concept of an original couple from whence we all came.

Hi Bradski;
Thanks for your contribution…all very interesting stuff.
From a philosophical point of view, would you allow that–evolution aside for the time being–there is a distinction to be made between a homogenous ancestor and heterogenous ancestor (I’m borring the distinction from Etienne Gilson). In other words, while it is/may be true that we can trace the ancestry of rational creatures to a non-rational ancestor, we can also trace ancestry to a more recent rational ancestor. Somewhere along the line, we can state with certainty that there emerged a state of human consciousness and rationality, even if biologically we can trace further back that the emergence of a rational agent. Therefore, there seems to be no logical conflict in holding both a non-rational ancestor and a rational ancestor.

 

[hicetnunc]

My goal is to eventually demonstrate the [philosophical] fallacy of the above quoted statement. There is a difference between humans and non-humans which is why the Catholic Church views natural science theories in two separate ways . In this century, it is not possible to lump together the theories of the 19th century and early 20th century with the theories of the 21st century and late 20th century.

Yes, it is a problem of terminology and semantics.

I believe you are right Grannymh. I don’t know if you’ve ever read Alasdair MacIntyre’s “Which Rationality, Whose Justice?” In it, he argues that there is a significant discrepancy in the way in which the term ‘rational’ is used by (among others) Aristotelian-Thomists, Kantians and Humeans. The debate about the origin of human rationality suffers from the fact that different accounts of reason are employed in the debate.

There can of course be no ‘degrees’ in reason, since it is a unified faculty: there are no “parts” to the faculty of reason by which it could progress from one stage to the next–from ‘kind of rational’ to ‘fully rational’. For example, there can be degrees of nutrition, since this corresponds to the diverse and complex nature of the body. Some food can be more or less nutritious than another kind. But reason does not admit of this kind of degree, because there are no parts to which it can be attributed. Either someone is capable of reasoning or not. This does not mean that there are no degrees in understanding, but the very first act of understanding is an act of reason. It is qualitiative and not quantitative, as Hume thought.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

God spent with Moses 40 days on Mount Sinai. Plenty of time to get the details, so he didn’t need any allegory. Harder for me to imagine an Adam and Eve created then left alone to find a way to survive, and through sin and fight for surviaval there will result a pure man (???); Creation for the purpose of survival? It is not reasonable. Even harder to imagine some sort of philosophical debate resulting in Adam’s and Eve decision regarding the development of humanity in a being with superior capabilities. Scientific method says: where is the tree? show me the tree. You have no tree, then it must be an allegory. I think this is an abuse of the scientific method. And regarding Adam’s sin, why an allegory instead of the real events?

My Dear Ion*,

As I stated in my original post, I was simply throwing in my ‘two cents’ :twocents:
about Adam & Eve and original sin. I never mentioned Moses, I never claimed to be an omniscient Old Testament theologian, nor did I demand proof of any trees. I do love science, though - and I do not perceive any conflict between my faith in God and the pursuit of truth through scientific investigation. We have seen the errors when that path has been chosen throughout history as evidenced by the Condemnations of 1210-1277, Galileo, Gessner, and Copernicus, to name a few.

*perhaps anion would be more accurate at the moment, as you seem to be negatively charged

 

[Ion]

If you go back to your grandmother, she obviously shared your rationality. And your ability to reason and form abstract concepts. As did her grandmother and hers before her and so on. At some point, you will reach a direct maternal ancestor that didn’t have these abilities. Because she wasn’t human.

The Catholic Church accepts this because it has no problem with evolution. But it seems it has made it difficult for itself in also trying to hold onto a concept of an original couple from whence we all came.

No problem. It has to hold only to the end of the world.

 

[Bradski]

As for “clearly contradictory” maybe yes, maybe no.

The Church suggests that there was an original couple yet accepts the scientific evidence that there wasn’t. I can’t see how that can be described as anything but contradictory. In what way do you think it isn’t?

Amazingly, I found the key statement which explains why some areas of natural science collide with some Catholic doctrines. It is: “In further works Darwin demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree not kind.”

The word “kind” is also known as species.

So the Church accepts TTWCBD but disagrees with its conclusions. There’s a disconnect here that I’m failing to grasp.

 

[Ion]

The Church suggests that there was an original couple yet accepts the scientific evidence that there wasn’t. I can’t see how that can be described as anything but contradictory. In what way do you think it isn’t?

So the Church accepts TTWCBD but disagrees with its conclusions. There’s a disconnect here that I’m failing to grasp.

I am member of the Catholic Church and I disagree with Darwin.

 

[grannymh]

The Church suggests that there was an original couple yet accepts the scientific evidence that there wasn’t. I can’t see how that can be described as anything but contradictory. In what way do you think it isn’t?

Not the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you are getting your information from the BioLogos website. While I am sure this foundation is doing good for many Christian religions; it definitely excludes Catholicism when it comes to human origin.

I am thinking that you have been misled by the vocal minority of “Catholic” individuals who accept scientific evidence, often without reading it. They shout that there is a mountain of evidence against our lovable first parents. (Anthills of assumptions are more like it.) Warehouses full of research is their dogmatic claim. My favorite intimidation was that if I believed in the reality of Adam, I would be washing natural science from anthropology to zoology right down the drain.

I have done my homework. The Catholic Church does not accept those interpretations of research which claim an universal exclusion of Adam and Eve.

So the Church accepts TTWCBD but disagrees with its conclusions. There’s a disconnect here that I’m failing to grasp.

May I say with respect that this sounds like a Catholic rehash of the 1940’s and earlier. The disconnect is that some people have not yet connected with the 21st century.

 

[Bradski]

I have done my homework. The Catholic Church does not accept those interpretations of research which claim an universal exclusion of Adam and Eve.

I’m not sure what you mean by interpretations. This isn’t a matter of personal conjecture. If the Church states that there was a first couple from which we are all descended, then they have to reject TTWCBD in its entirety or at least explain to the laity that the two are incompatible.

If you believe one, then it discounts the other. You cannot hold to both.

 

[Ion]

I’m not sure what you mean by interpretations. This isn’t a matter of personal conjecture. If the Church states that there was a first couple from which we are all descended, then they have to reject TTWCBD in its entirety or at least explain to the laity that the two are incompatible.

If you believe one, then it discounts the other. You cannot hold to both.

It is you who can’t, because you exclude God’s intervention.

 

[Bradski]

It is you who can’t, because you exclude God’s intervention.

I’m quite happy to concede God’s intervention in the grand scheme of things. But on one hand we have a gradual appearance and the other an immediate one. You can’t have them both.

 

[Ion]

I’m quite happy to concede God’s intervention in the grand scheme of things. But on one hand we have a gradual appearance and the other an immediate one. You can’t have them both.

Depends on the reference and also the scale.

 

[Bradski]

Depends on the reference and also the scale.

You may have to expound on that a little.

 

[Ion]

We would get out of the boundaries of this thread. I might not be the best person to explain to you the CCC. Do you think there is anything illogical in the Book of Genesis regarding the creation?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what you mean by interpretations. This isn’t a matter of personal conjecture. If the Church states that there was a first couple from which we are all descended, then they have to reject TTWCBD in its entirety or at least explain to the laity that the two are incompatible.

If you believe one, then it discounts the other. You cannot hold to both.

I am so sorry that it is difficult to understand that natural science is not set in stone.

Not only, as is found in the major scientific journals, does one research paper point out that a previous research paper’s methods need to be updated, but also major classifications of science inquiry have different categories. Biology is a good example.

Interpretations are interpretations of the particular evidence presented within an individual research paper. Interpretations, using the inductive (scientific) method appear at the end of the research paper. Often general interpretations appear in the paper’s abstract. Often, so that there is breaking news, the media publishes its own interpretations.

It is time for all of us to leave the TTWCBD and get back to the real Adam. Those who wish to explore various aspects of natural science can use this link.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php