Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

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?

Yes, the Book of Genesis which has 50 chapters is out of the boundaries of this thread

 

[Bradski]

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

Did I miss something recently that says that they are two ideas that do not contradict each other? I’d be greatfull if you could explain how it could be so.

As I said earlier, you can follow your line of ancestory back for millions of years. In fact, you only have to accept that there were people around more than a few thousand years ago to mean that Adam and Eve could not be the first couple.

 

[grannymh]

Did I miss something recently that says that they are two ideas that do not contradict each other? I’d be greatfull if you could explain how it could be so.

As I said earlier, you can follow your line of ancestory back for millions of years. In fact, you only have to accept that there were people around more than a few thousand years ago to mean that Adam and Eve could not be the first couple.

Instead of going off topic, you will find the answers to the majority of your comments and questions in these links
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

 

[grannymh]

One of the most important things about Adam & Logic is to avoid getting hung up on individual research.

Instead of trying to remember which paper says what, it is better to have a general understanding of the scientific method. This link is part of a high school introduction to science.
batesvilleinschools.com/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

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

In addition, we need to keep in mind that natural science is a gift from God. There are many benefits from the hard, difficult work of sincere women and men, especially in the medical arena. Transportation benefits are major. We have come a long way since the invention of the wheel.

When we get a good grasp on the scientific (inductive) method, we need to ask ourselves – Does natural science provide the only description of the human person?

Recall that Adam was a human person who is described as having a rational intellect and an operating will.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Is it philosophy which can fully describe the rational being?

Seems to me that regardless of how the modern human anatomy came about, it is the human rational abilities evinced in the first three chapters of Genesis which distinguishes humans from non-human animals.

Am I referring to the philosophical essence of a being? Please straighten out my vocabulary.

 

[grannymh]

Did I miss something recently that says that they are two ideas that do not contradict each other? I’d be greatfull if you could explain how it could be so.

As I said earlier, you can follow your line of ancestory back for millions of years. In fact, you only have to accept that there were people around more than a few thousand years ago to mean that Adam and Eve could not be the first couple.

My apology, but I am not sure how to answer this.

Because human nature, itself, is an unique unification of* both* the spiritual and material worlds, Catholicism can explore both the spiritual and material worlds. What people need to keep in mind is that Catholic doctrines contain information about the spiritual world of God and God’s interactions with His creatures. The Catholic Church does not properly define (according to protocol) scientific doctrines based in the material/physical environment.

Does this concept of separation help?

 

[grannymh]

Did I miss something recently that says that they are two ideas that do not contradict each other? I’d be greatfull if you could explain how it could be so.

As I said earlier, you can follow your line of ancestory back for millions of years. In fact, you only have to accept that there were people around more than a few thousand years ago to mean that Adam and Eve could not be the first couple.

My apology, but I am not sure which ideas you are referring to?

Because human nature, itself, is an unique unification of* both* the spiritual and material worlds, Catholicism can explore both the spiritual and material worlds. What people need to keep in mind is that Catholic doctrines contain information about the spiritual world of God and God’s interactions with His creatures. The Catholic Church does not properly define (according to protocol) scientific doctrines based in the material/physical environment.

Does this concept of separation help?

 

[grannymh]

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.

Is it philosophy which can fully describe the rational being?

Seems to me that regardless of how the modern human anatomy came about, it is the human rational abilities evinced in the first three chapters of Genesis which distinguishes humans from non-human animals.

Am I referring to the philosophical description of a being? Please straighten out my vocabulary.

Rather than get into the biology of archaic beings, could we apply the general scientific requirement that the conclusion must be warranted by the presented evidence. Obviously, when one tries to determine pre-human history events, assumptions are standard operating procedure.

 

[grannymh]

It is logical, given the human nature that you and I possess, that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church.
Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

This is a brief outline of how I see the logic of the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents.

It is based on logical observation.

I start with the natural observation that there is an extreme difference between the human person and other vertebrates.

In addition, humans have an inherent ability to sense and eventually know the spiritual world as existing outside of themselves. This knowledge does not have to be accurate. It is the human ability, itself, which is key. Second to this is the ability to act according to one’s perception of the spiritual world.

If this ability to sense the spiritual were of material origin, then it would follow that beings which are material in nature would sense the spiritual. It could be possible that conscious or highly sensitive animals sense something beyond their instinct for survival which may be considered spiritual or beyond their normal physical actions. As said above, humans can choose actions according to the perception of the spiritual world. Animals do not design a crystal cathedral as evidence of the spiritual aspects of their own lives. Therefore, we have a two-in-one feature – we are able to sense the spiritual and we are able to choose specific actions in accord with the perception of the spiritual. Both are necessary for the definition of human nature.

From our observations, we see that some species become extinct at the same time new species are being found. An example of this is the deep exploration of the ocean’s bottom now possible though technology. An interesting side issue is the question – Are these “new” ocean species actually new or are they adaptions of old species? Following this is the question – Were the old species correctly identified?
By the way, these two questions are still being asked by paleoanthropologists.

What is being seen in the strictly material/physical world (ocean is only one example) is the freedom of genes. While some human genes are changing, basic nature has not changed. Catholicism teaches that all people are called to share in the life of God regardless of hair color or serious deformities of the human anatomy.

Shifting to the dictionary, (American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) the simple definition of polygenesis is “derivation of a species or type from more than one ancestor or germ cell.” More than one ancestor is simply a population of beings living together and mating randomly. This is not quite the same as a single species living together like a wolf pack. What is being suggested is that the so-called human material ancestor population broke apart, i.e., diverged. Because of the freedom of gene diversity produced by a variety of mating sources, new kinds of populations appeared. For example, drought can force a population to migrate. Or drought can force adaptation to circumstances. But drought cannot guarantee that the original population will all do the same thing. Remember, in the above material/physical scenario, genes are inherited from a variety of living beings.

What is unusual about humankind is that despite migration division to different climates and environments, the affected human population does not break apart. Nor has time changed this unity of the human species. Physically, there are short people and tall people; yet they are all persons.

At conception, we do not control the genome (total genetic makeup) which is ours. Why is it that we instinctively know that the embryo of two mating humans will be a human? While vertebrates share similar genetics, humanity does not reflect or imitate a variety of vertebrate anatomies. We are ourselves.

Our difference from other vertebrates has remained constant for centuries. This solid difference or separation from other species is because our origin is from a specific couple and not from a variety of possible sources. Our origin is from two parents, essentially different from a variety of existing populations. Because we come from two original parents, we are assured that we are completely human. And we are guaranteed that our children will be completely human.

 

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, it is logical, given the human nature that you and I possess, that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church.
Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

Because the Catholic Church holds that a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) does in fact exist–the presupposition for this thread is God as Creator exists.

I do wonder if anyone would spot the error in these two sentences.

1. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority.
2. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.

Sentence 1. True. Why?

Sentence 2. Not always. Why?

 

[hicetnunc]

Is it philosophy which can fully describe the rational being?

I believe so grannymh. Reason is integral to the very notion of what it means to be a human being—that is, a rational creature. In fact, I would say that understanding and defining reason is fundamental to philosophy, at least to Thomistic philosophy. Thomas defines the human person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” In fact, his definition of reason is quite beautiful. For Thomas, reason is not simply a mechanical operation of the brain, but the very participation in the life of God. Reason is nothing less than the light of God in each one of us. In the De Veritate, he says that to be made in the image of God means to be rational. In the proper use of reason, we become divinised.

 

[grannymh]

I believe so grannymh. Reason is integral to the very notion of what it means to be a human being—that is, a rational creature. In fact, I would say that understanding and defining reason is fundamental to philosophy, at least to Thomistic philosophy. Thomas defines the human person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” In fact, his definition of reason is quite beautiful. For Thomas, reason is not simply a mechanical operation of the brain, but the very participation in the life of God. Reason is nothing less than the light of God in each one of us. In the De Veritate, he says that to be made in the image of God means to be rational. In the proper use of reason, we become divinised.

Wonderful!

I am getting to know friend Thomas, not necessarily by reading his works, but understanding who he is and what he was accomplishing. I have Aquinas on Creation, translated by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll. (ISBN-0-88844-285-8) It is a small book on "Writings on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard 2.1.1. It is the Introduction and Analysis (some 60 pages) that captures my attention. Someday, I will read his words.

Would it be possible to post Thomas’s definition of reason/Image of God? etc.?

Genesis 1; 26-27 and paragraph 355, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. are the essential keys to human nature. These doctrines are what lifts us out of and beyond our material environment.

We need Thomas. By the way, I have already requested his help. And there you are, here and now. I do some editing for a philosopher friend.

 

[Bahman]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.
2. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.
3. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.
4. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

 

[grannymh]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

A better way of answering troubling questions about Adam, is to logically search out some basic truths in the first three chapters of Genesis.

For example,

1. How would you describe the difference between God and Adam?
2. How would you describe the difference between Adam and the other living creatures brought forth by God?

 

[grannymh]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.
2. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.
3. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.
4. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

When we are troubled by the story of Adam and Eve, we need to look first at Jesus Christ Who repaired the damage which occurred at the beginning of human history.

The Catholic Church tells us that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. As True God, Jesus has loved all humanity from the moment of Adam’s first breath of life. Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd because not only does He take care of His flock, but He also hunts for any sheep that lost its way.

As True Man, Jesus can stand in our place and repair the broken relationship which was originally between Adam and God. Sometimes at sports events, someone will hold up a sign which simply says, John 3: 16. I have seen John 3:16 as part of a barn roof. John 3: 16 refers to the Gospel written by John. The chapter is 3 and the verse is 16. This is what it says: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son (Jesus Christ) so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life.” No matter what Adam did, God continues to call us, you and me, to eternal life in the peaceful presence of God Himself. No matter what evil and suffering is in our world, we know that God, our Creator loves us and wants us to be with Him in eternal joy. This is why Jesus came to earth. He made it possible for us to be with God. Jesus repaired the damage which Adam chose to do.

To go back to the beginning when Adam lived, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam, the very first human being on earth, enjoyed a special relationship with God, the Creator. However, this special friendship relationship was not between two equals. Adam certainly was not an equal God. The reason Adam could be in friendship with God was that he had this marvelous ability to freely choose God. Choosing God meant that Adam was still a lesser creature, but he had both the knowledge and the free will to live as a creature in love with his Creator.

Of course, God knew that Adam could refuse to choose God. God knew Adam could stop living in obedience. Sometimes, we need to remind ourselves that Adam was not a pretty rock. Adam was a true person who needed to make choices as to how he was going to live.

Often we wonder why didn’t God make Adam perfect so he couldn’t sin. Both sin and love are actions which require a choice. If Adam could not choose sin or not choose love, he would be a pretty rock.

God’s love for Adam and his spouse Eve was so great that He blessed them as the first parents of all humanity which would follow. With this blessing, Adam and Eve started out in a relationship of love and friendship with God. Their future children and their children’s future children would begin life in God’s friendship. Before all this could take place, Adam had a choice to make. The terms or rules for being in friendship with God was that Adam had to be obedient. Remember that he was not a god, but someone created by God.

I know I have not answered most of your questions. However, it is important to understand Adam before he chose sin. And then, I will try my best to answer your important questions.

I would like to hear what you think about this so far. Maybe, I did answer some of your questions. In any case, I want to continue talking about this with you.

 

[Love4All]

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.

1. Why wait? Is the Holy Spirit lacking in His ability to lead you to the Truth?
2. You wrote,

“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’.”

A couple of questions: what is the other side of the coin of ‘free will?’ Virtue?

And, why do you think it impossible that God could have commanded a man to do something as simple as, “stay away from this one tree?”

 

[Love4All]

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.

The Pomegranate.

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?

 

[Love4All]

TTWCBD

Huh??

 

[Love4All]

I do wonder if anyone would spot the error in these two sentences.

1. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority.
2. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.

Sentence 1. True. Why?

Sentence 2. Not always. Why?

1. Because Nature is the subject-matter of the study of the natural sciences.
2. Because the idea might be spiritual.

 

[Love4All]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.

Of course God knew. Omniscience means to know everything without exception.

Your statement of a dilemma hides an assumption, namely that there is some punishment administered for something a person didn’t do. I don’t see where you are deriving this assumption.

1. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.

Is possibility actuality?

1. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.

Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Any free being can sin.

1. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

Do you think life is unfair? If not, then I don’t see your objection. If so, then how do you propose it could be made more fair? Are you a being with knowledge and power?