Adam & Logic

[Aloysium]

Looking back, there are sweet memories filled with the sadness of loss. More than half a century ago, it was a different world. I recall one day, my mother anxiously sitting next to me and having something very important to say. It was an awkward moment in which we both felt trapped: the dreaded birds and bees talk. Not sure what was happening but eager to allay her embarassment, I assumed an affected disinterest. She responded by leaving quickly, most assuredly relieved that at least she had tried and fulfilled her parental duty. I myself, filled with a sense of wonder concerning powerful mysteries that evoke awe and horror, wanted to call her back. Somehow I knew that my questions would be answered by information that I had already picked up from more worldly friends.

Genesis provides us with a solid foundation on which we can formulate a true understanding of who it is that we are and how we got here. Telling us about ourselves our world and our relationship to each other and to God, it speaks to mankind in all ages. Transcending whatever the particular scientific or philosophical system that is in place at the time, it reveals eternal truths.

With regards to monogenesis:

The alternative view is illustrated in Kubrick’s Space Odyssey: a group of hominids undergo an evolutionary spurt in intellect growth, enabling them to conquer their adversaries and flourish in the natural world. There is no explanation as to how this would have happened. The movie seems to imply that something external having a physical presence and metaphysical power caused this metamorphisis. Science would say that it is random, there being no other empirical answer. To me, this is seriously insufficient, if not completely invalid.

What can we get from scripture?
Life is rooted in the divine. There is no other purpose or meaning more fundemental than our loving each other and God. There is sin, through which we have driven ourselves from the place where we should be. That sin began with the first parents, and spread through the generations. The first parents were one, but torn by that sin from their unity.

But how does one integrate that knowledge into today’s understanding of the cosmos? Certainly in physics, it has been proven that the universe began in a manner that clearly to the vast majority of people, suggests creation. Addressing our origins as human beings, it is more difficult. This is because with the physical universe we are talking about physics. When it comes to us, we require understandings of the world of the spirit. Talk of angels and demons, can evoke ridicule and perhaps a referral for psychiatric help.

I think that in physical terms, we can place the origin of man to somewhere in the middle east in the range of 120,000 years ago. How that relates to what happened in the garden in the east, in the land of the rising sun, at the beginning of time, I can speculate only.

We have to go beyond science to capture the truth and the beauty of human nature and its origins.

 

[wmw]

I look at Genesis as a story of the beginning of sin more than of our human beginnings though the two are very connected. The story is about a transition from the Good that God had first created to a place of good and evil, this Earth. It’s not to tell us what happened at this time and then this etc.

This transition from Eden to Earth is an extreme transition in environment which required an extremely different sort of physical relationship to it. We also broke the immediacy of our relationship to God. All of this transformation is necessary to be a part of this Earth in Adam and in Eve and in all their descendents. Thus it is an inheritance of body, condition, and relationship not an inheritance of any one sin or sin itself, but the consequences of the completely different environment and community of nature and humanity that includes a propensity to sin.

 

[hicetnunc]

I’m really enjoying reading the posts in this very thoughtful thread…it’s a slow burner I think, with something good cooking away. I really should get back to my packing before I shoot off in a couple of days, but I’ve been thinking about this, and wanted to share something from a great little book of Scott Hahn’s I just finished reading called A Father Who Keeps His Promises.

In the book, Hahn explains how, as revelation unfolds, not only is God objectively known in a greater degree (in other words, we’re learning more and more about God), but also subjectively in the human race. By that, Hahn points out the way in which God’s unfolding self-revelation is not scattered randomly over humanity, but incrementally. The first revelation of God is to a human pair: Adam and Eve; then to a family, Noah; then to a tribe, Abraham; then to a nation, Moses; then to a Kingdom, in David; finally, to the whole human race, in Jesus Christ. I may have muddled the unfolding characters a bit, but that’s the gist of it.

God’s self-revelation is intrinsically linked to the emergence of the human race. Adam and Eve represent not only the first human beings, but the first moment God is revealed in creation.

Fr Luigi Giussani puts it quite beautifully I think: the human person is that level of nature where nature becomes aware of itself. Adam and Eve are the moment of God’s revelation in creation. God, who is the source of Reason, is manifested in this moment.

I’m back to packing, but will keep my eye on the unfolding revelations in this thread…

 

[tolstoy]

Sorry, Granny, your mirrored image notwithstanding.

There is no logical train of thought that that would lead one to imagine the Biblical Adam without a prior belief in some religious teaching

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, Granny, your mirrored image notwithstanding.

There is no logical train of thought that that would lead one to imagine the Biblical Adam without a prior belief in some religious teaching

Welcome to CAF.

You are right in that there would have to be a prior belief in some religious teaching in order to substantiate the existence of a first human being affectionately known as the Biblical Adam.

Even more essential, nature wise, human nature per se must be capable of recognizing the super-natural on an universal basis. By that I mean that given the variety of cultures, each culture has a sense of something beyond the normal, natural, everyday material environment. This “something” is not confined to a specific something. For example, in one culture there may be shamans, in another sacred grounds of the dead or Egyptian pyramids. There are some great ancient stories about creation with all kinds of interesting characters. There are super-natural figures such as Baal, and local fertility gods and war gods. Even thunder has been explained as angels bowling. And, of course, there is Catholicism.

The point about recognizing the universal sense of the super-natural is not one of validity of what was being recognized as super-natural; rather the point is that there is a human approach to something beyond what one can see and touch. Learning the natural explanation for thunder does not erase the fact that at one time, humans used a super-natural explanation. St. Paul preaching the fact of Jesus Christ did not erase the fact of Roman gods.

Considering all of the above, I placed two stipulations or presuppositions in my opening post.
From Post 1.
"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."

Due to length, my response is continued in the next post.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 122.
I did not mean to bend your ear, but part of a demonstration for Adam’s sole existence, until Eve, has to evaluate the period in which the Genesis writer lived. It is my understanding that along with the Adam account, there were numerous myths of this and that. Saying that the period was pre-scientific is only part of the equation. The Genesis writer, like people before and after, did have rational abilities which were used to sort out the truth.

The human nature, which we possess, is an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world. One of the questions which perplexed the Genesis writer was how to describe human nature having a spiritual principle. The stark contrast between the use of “be fertile” in Genesis 1: 22 and Genesis 1: 26-28 is a beacon of light.

You are right about Adam being based on a religious teaching. This thread has chosen the religious teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I cannot say that the writer of the first three chapters of Genesis referred to Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, link scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
But I can use this Catechism to shed light on Adam and his place at the beginning of human history.

A bare bones outline of the logical train of thought is that at the beginning, one needs to recognize and understand the language being used to describe Adam. This understanding has to be grounded in the ordinary life of the writer who had hold of the truth going back to the mouth of Adam. That kind of circular reasoning is necessary because God is both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. For the Genesis writer, God is the Alpha, Genesis 1: 1. As God revealed Himself in subsequent books of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, we find that God as the Beatific Vision is the Omega, the final goal of human life.
John 14: 1-3. Romans 5: 21.

The nitty-gritty question is – How does the writer of the first three chapters of Genesis explain that each one of us qualifies for admittance to joy eternal in the presence of God, Himself. Obviously, being qualified is the necessary first step; the rest of the steps involve our accepting or rejecting God’s invitation to share in His life on earth (sanctifying grace) and in heaven. How can we be sure that our decomposing anatomy was one of the “all” when Jesus Christ opened the gates of heaven as He obediently hung bleeding on a cross and thus was victorious over death?

It is true that God directly creates the spiritual soul in each human being. But our physical anatomy comes from our two parents. In fact, we would not exist without the rule of propagation one generation to the next. The speculation of random mattings, leading to special anatomical kinds of generations, are not a comforting proposition for the jump start of humanity-- especially when some of us are not as intelligent or as athletic or as spiritually inclined or as pretty as others.

Did God, Who is absolute love, create anatomical second-class humans? Some people answer yes. Catholicism, with the authority of Divine Revelation, answers no because we all descended from two, sole, fully-complete, real human parents. Therefore, in Catholicism, natural human propagation from a single source (Adam and Eve) becomes the logical way of insuring that the *nature *of each one of us, in our own individual material body, comes from God with His direct, personal creation of our eternal spiritual soul fitted to a special anatomy. Our nature is not two natures united, “but rather their union forms a single nature.” (CCC 365 and 355-368) Logically, this unique nature, anatomically, would have had to come from single parents who, together, possessed the exact same single human nature including the spiritual soul. This necessary oneness of human origin is expressed in the first three chapters of Genesis, not in biological terminology, but in descriptive wording expressing salient observations.

 

[Bill1940]

At risk of over-simplification, Divine intervention is the necessary miracle beyond creation itself. May I propose that God took the slime of the Earth, the merely animal result of organic evolution, breathed life into one individual and it became a man. Similarly, He took another individual, from the same stock pot, a “rib” of the same material, breathed life into it, making a woman for the man. These two humans were the first creatures having free will, and the rest is salvation history.

 

[Aloysium]

At risk of over-simplification, Divine intervention is the necessary miracle beyond creation itself. May I propose that God took the slime of the Earth, the merely animal result of organic evolution, breathed life into one individual and it became a man. Similarly, He took another individual, from the same stock pot, a “rib” of the same material, breathed life into it, making a woman for the man. These two humans were the first creatures having free will, and the rest is salvation history.

:twocents:

Going with this, God created animals: matter assumed an animal soul. (How does that work!!) They move, get angry, scared, enjoy pleasures, feel pain, dominate, submit, live and die. It is possible that God moulded an intelligent ape through His “unfolding” of the natural world.

Into this collection of dust, within the animal mind of this creature He breathed, bestowing His likeness: an eternal nature, free will and the capacity to love and reason, to experience beauty and joy, to know oneself and to know Him. (One of the consequences of sin is the weakening of control over our animal instincts.)

The creation of Eve gets tricky. She is described as having been made from the unity of Adam’s flesh and spirit. This description seems more correct in revealing the truth of our nature, so I would not lose it solely to justify evolution.

We hope in our resurrection as a new glorious body. This among many other mysteries makes me think that I cannot close the books of what constitutes reality.

 

[StrawberryJam]

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.

Granny how are you?
Is your argument something like this: We are human. Adam was human. Therefore, God.

 

[ericc]

Post 1 of this thread

“One man” is very important. Logically, given the scenario below, there could only be one man and his spouse as founders of the human species.

Think what would happen if Adam were the representative figure of a group of human first parents with each person having free will since they would possess human nature. Some, of course, would freely follow Adam’s choice and their wounded nature, which would be transmitted to their descendants, would be in a state deprived of original holiness and justice. (CCC 399-400). Others would freely live in submission to God; therefore, their descendants would be born in the state of original holiness and justice. (CCC 374-379)
???

Exactly! If one is writing about the creation of the world, the beginning of everything, it doesn’t make sense to start a story mid-stream with a subset of a pre-existing population. One will have to start with the very first “specimen” to tell a story and not somewhere where humans have started to exist and multiplied. It is also not logical to start mid-stream to talk about the Fall of a sub-group of humans and leave the other sub-group(s) unaccounted for. It would also render Romans 5:18 a false statement and probably many other verses in the Bible too.

Alternatively, if we were to accept that Adam is the representative for Man, then for Original Sin to be true for all mankind, then it necessarily requires all of his fellows to fall into sin as well. But why assume such a complex scenario when just a single man will do? You just need to go backwards in generation till you reach the First Parents, the very first ensoulment.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Exactly! If one is writing about the creation of the world, the beginning of everything, it doesn’t make sense to start a story mid-stream with a subset of a pre-existing population. One will have to start with the very first “specimen” to tell a story and not somewhere where humans have started to exist and multiplied. It is also not logical to start mid-stream to talk about the Fall of a sub-group of humans and leave the other sub-group(s) unaccounted for. It would also render Romans 5:18 a false statement and probably many other verses in the Bible too.

Alternatively, if we were to accept that Adam is the representative for Man, then for Original Sin to be true for all mankind, then it necessarily requires all of his fellows to fall into sin as well. But why assume such a complex scenario when just a single man will do? You just need to go backwards in generation till you reach the First Parents, the very first ensoulment.

What makes intuitive sense to us does not make truth. Making a better story does not make the story true.,

 

[grannymh]

Granny how are you?
Is your argument something like this: We are human. Adam was human. Therefore, God.

It is good to see you, Strawberry Jam.

I am learning a lot in this thread which makes me feel good. I am sure I will not rest in my coffin until my curiosity is satisfied about how it was made.

Glad that you are here because you have stated my argument exactly. “We are human. Adam was human. Therefore, God.”

What I personally think is essential to being human is our will which seeks our good; yet, we can use it freely to choose our personal actions or inaction. Bill1940 in post 124 above is the first person I have met who mentioned free will first in regard to humanity. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10999225&postcount=124

I am in awe at the posts which have appeared – there is so much I can learn from them.

 

[wmw]

Many atheists have argued that there is no test for free will that it is an untestable hypnosis; therefore, a meaningless question that can have no answer. Often summed up as a delusion of free will.

This is obviously taken from a viewpoint that only empirical science can determine anything. I think of this as a great example of the dead end of limiting acceptance of everything to only the methods of empirical science. A dead end in that if the only accept the measurable the conclusion is that we are just accidentally jumbled together robots that just follow our evolutionary biological programing then all is as meaningless as if this was a universe without life. A very depressing dead robot theory that “life is not living but a biological reaction”.

So I say all this to cement that free will is directly dependent upon the human soul and is the most obvious effect of the spiritual upon our real lives. We feel it, claim it’s action in our lives; yet, it is not a scientifically testable phenomena.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

I am in an exam situation, with a paper in front of me, filled with symbols I am supposed to know, perhaps used to know, but it does not come together. Other people are working hard at it, and some are finished, accepting praises from the teacher. It is late. Where was I when I should have been writing? Why am I not more prepared? It is over. People are milling about. The invigilator seems not to care that that I have gone over-time, but there is yet another page of things I should know. I can’t hand this in; I must.

This “dream” is what I sense as being under the surface when I am confronted with reductionistic arguments that would do away with religious teachings. It does not only illustrate the position of the unbeliever, but also my own, trying to emerge from a state of ignorance and sin. As frustrating as those discussions can be, as is evidenced in wmw’s post above, they usually bring out the reality of such concepts as “free will”: “of course it is!”, being the happy outcome. Such encounters are valuable in spurring us on to ultimately meet God face to face: the Truth itself.

In a previous post granny mentioned that it was “important to walk in the moccasins” of the early Genesis writers. To better grasp the meaning of scripture, one must understand the world view of the people who wrote them. There is another saying that the man wearing shoes perceives the world as covered in leather. Although we are brothers and sisters sharing in a common human nature, our understandings are shaped by our culture. It seems to me the leathery old ways gave us a better means to reach the Ground of our being, compared to the plasticized rubber and new age polymers that modern society provides.

 

[simpleas]

I just wanted to say i’m loving this forum! Some of it goes right over my head, but its very interesting and as the whole creation story has been on my mind lately it has helped explain some things to me!
So thank you!

 

[Faith1960]

grannymh, THANK YOU for starting this thread!!

I also live in the both/and world, and I agree with you that it seems, given the evidence, there really was an Adam. And yet, it seems, given the evidence, that the species Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for something on the order of a million years or so. Attempting to resolve this apparent dilemma, I have done research into Natural History, into Written History, and into the world’s religious texts such as have come down to us. I think I found the resolution of it on a web site whose author is a Kabbalist.

Adam was not the first member of the species Homo sapiens. Biologically, it doesn’t even make sense to posit a “first member” of a species. Speciation is not thought to occur via any so-called saltation events. But Adam was the First Man. So obviously, we are here defining “man” differently than according to our biological species.

Adam was the first human to know God, and he knew God with knowledge in which there was no uncertainty. And for a brief shining moment, however long that moment may have been, Adam and Eve knew God, and did not sin. But then, they sinned. They fell away from the perfect Knowledge of God, because although they could attain it, they could not maintain it.

There is a lot more. A LOT more. But this may serve for a start. Looking forward to a good discussion!

I tried sending you a PM but it said you aren’t receiving messages. I think I’m kind of where you once were with this subject. Feel free to add anything to the thread I started titled Genesis, Ed Feser and Dr. Bonnette.

 

[grannymh]

I tried sending you a PM but it said you aren’t receiving messages. I think I’m kind of where you once were with this subject. Feel free to add anything to the thread I started titled Genesis, Ed Feser and Dr. Bonnette.

I am not sure what caused the PM trouble you had. Please try again to grannymh.

When I looked at post 6 to which you replied, I saw a reference to biological species. While biological species is correct terminology when we examine our material, decomposing anatomies, we are actually a superior species, separate and totally distinct from all other species on earth. Because Adam began life with a nature both material and spiritual, it is apparent that he is unique among all living organisms, past and present.

Post 6 makes this point: “So obviously, we are here defining ‘man’ differently than according to our biological species.”

Starting with that natural observation, we can reflect on the idea that an unique created being would not necessarily have to follow the propagation patterns of random mating used by archaic beings. When that unique human being is capable not only of rational thinking but also capable of choosing actions contrary to natural instincts, we are looking at the definite possibility of two, sole founders of our humankind-----two founders with a blessing to be fertile and multiply so that they can fill the earth and have dominion over all the creatures of the air, water, and earth.
(Refer to Genesis 1: 26-28)

 

[Faith1960]

I am not sure what caused the PM trouble you had. Please try again to grannymh.

When I looked at post 6 to which you replied, I saw a reference to biological species. While biological species is correct terminology when we examine our material, decomposing anatomies, we are actually a superior species, separate and totally distinct from all other species on earth. Because Adam began life with a nature both material and spiritual, it is apparent that he is unique among all living organisms, past and present.

Post 6 makes this point: “So obviously, we are here defining ‘man’ differently than according to our biological species.”

Starting with that natural observation, we can reflect on the idea that an unique created being would not necessarily have to follow the propagation patterns of random mating used by archaic beings. When that unique human being is capable not only of rational thinking but also capable of choosing actions contrary to natural instincts, we are looking at the definite possibility of two, sole founders of our humankind-----two founders with a blessing to be fertile and multiply so that they can fill the earth and have dominion over all the creatures of the air, water, and earth.
(Refer to Genesis 1: 26-28)

I think Love4All was banned from the site, so I guess that’s why I couldn’t contact her in a PM.

 

[wmw]

:twocents:

… As frustrating as those discussions can be, as is evidenced in wmw’s post above, they usually bring out the reality of such concepts as “free will”: “of course it is!”, being the happy outcome. Such encounters are valuable in spurring us on to ultimately meet God face to face: the Truth itself.

Wow, I had a hard time seeing how great a complement this is. I almost did work it into some scarastic backhanded one. Now on multiple readings over a couple days I realized how hard I worked to not see what is plain. I deeply thank you and admonish myself for being blind in this way while saying the spirital can be easily seen. I Hope I’ve learned this and am corrected that the mind must be well prepared before seeds of faith can take root. Much more difficult than seeing such a fine complement anyway.

Blessed are those with splinters in the eyes that learn from those with planks protruding from theirs.

 

[grannymh]

:twocents:

In a previous post granny mentioned that it was “important to walk in the moccasins” of the early Genesis writers. To better grasp the meaning of scripture, one must understand the world view of the people who wrote them. There is another saying that the man wearing shoes perceives the world as covered in leather. Although we are brothers and sisters sharing in a common human nature, our understandings are shaped by our culture. It seems to me the leathery old ways gave us a better means to reach the Ground of our being, compared to the plasticized rubber and new age polymers that modern society provides.

Now that you have mentioned the importance of the worldview of the Genesis writers, you have uncovered a possible, not probable, illogical train of thought in the first three chapters of Genesis.

When I think about walking in the moccasins of the early Genesis writers, I imagine day-to-day culture. But worldview? That is something bigger and takes in the future in addition to the present.

My bible’s introduction to Genesis makes this comment about its chapters 1-11 “To make the truths contained in these chapters** intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them,** they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among that people at that time.”

What my wording in bold says to me is that the Genesis writer considered his nation as a major player in world events present and future. This makes sense considering the Israelite’s relationship with God. There is certainly power. Therefore, wouldn’t it be logical for the Genesis writer to start Genesis with the glory of the Israelite people? O.K. Starting Genesis with God is proper since ultimately the Israelites depended on the power of God to protect and sustain their population. Yet, surely, humans are logically more significant than “all kinds of creeping things” and consequently would be at the top of the list.

In ancient times, gardens could be magnificent and were often described as a paradise. Instead of describing the first human as a “king” of all he surveys, Adam becomes the local gardener without a single servant to pick and peal the fruit from the trees. (Genesis 2: 15-17) I bet that after he and Eve had dinner, Adam would take out the trash.

As for sin, which was common, wouldn’t it be better to shift the guilt to some kind of foreign intruder?

As we study paragraphs 355-368 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, we find the real logic of Adam being a sole individual. The Genesis writer understood the dignity of being a person who is not just something, but someone capable of a relationship with one’s Creator. Perfect human knowledge of God was not necessary because God is the one Who reaches out to humans. God personally gives each human individual a spiritual soul so that each individual can independently share in God’s life through knowledge and love.

So that each person destined for the future would recognize her and his worth as an independent individual, God created humanity first as one individual totally loved by Himself as Creator. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the whole humankind is in Adam “as one body of one man”. (De Malo 4, 1 quoted in CCC 404) Consequently, as Adam was personally loved, we, too, are personally loved.

The logic of descending from one Adam assures each of us that we are actually automatically loved by God. Because our nature, though wounded, is the same given to the first sole human, logically (like begets like) we recognize that all humans had to descend from the first, extremely unique human person.