Can I stay Catholic and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[Teek]

As to the part of the question about whether you can not believe something the Church teaches as divinely revealed, and ignoring for a moment which teaching you refer to…

You are required to give intellectual and theological assent to divine revelation.

The link below helps to define the different legalities, which, if you can follow (which was rough for me and I love this stuff) are rather complex and nuanced. The essence is this: yes, to be Catholic you have to assent to Catholic teaching. If you harbor serious doubts or reject them it is, on some level, embracing a heretical position.

That doesn’t mean you are wrong to have a doubt or a question! It serves to show that, when you have a doubt, it is imperative, as you are doing, to pray about it, learn about it, investigate it, and grapple with it until you are at last able to lay to rest the doubt.

The Church has the answers you need. The forum might not get it just right for you, but perhaps there is a saint, or a formal apologist, or a priest or Bishop or book or something that offers the perspective that you need to come around to the truth.

The operating premise is this: Jesus founded a Church to protect and preserve truth so that, 2000 years later, when you had this question, you could find God’s answer, uncorrupted and unchanging, because it is objective truth, and He wants you to know Truth.

The Church, at the core, is in the business of guarding objective truth. It becomes necessary to subjectively interpret objective truth in different times and cultures, and therefor it becomes involved in subjective application of objective truth.

For example: the Our Father translations being proposed. People today don’t like to hear “lead us not into temptation.” So a pastoral concern is that maybe we should change it so people TODAY understand. A new perspective within the people receiving the faith has made this line uncomfortable after hundreds of years of use. That is a subjective change in understanding truth that needs to be answered in catechesis and pastoral care—what does it mean to pray this way? But the objective truth of what Jesus taught must still be preserved.

Or birth control. The forms of birth control in question today were not an issue until modern medicine invented them. So objective truth must be interpreted to respond to this subjective application of truth. It can’t oppose objective truth. But it must apply the objective to a subject. A subjective application of objective truth.

Divine revelation is objective Truth. When we read it it instantly becomes subjective—about our interpretation—about how we understand it—about what it means to ME. We can get it wrong.

Link about Church and required belief:

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=311923&language=en

 

[DetectiveNiko]

I think this question has been answered pretty well, from both sides of the spectrum

 

[goout]

You are trying to conflate science and theology. It is a very common thing to do.
Let both disciplines do what they do, and relax. Neither discipline threatens the other, they can work together.

The Church teaches that God infused souls into two first parents. That is mandatory theological belief. As is original sin.

How they came about -materially- is in the realm of science. Whether or not the name is literally “Adam and Eve” is not required belief.

This need not threaten your faith. It’s your choice to let it or not.

 

[goout]

how can…

These are the key words in your post: “how can” it happen?
Science deals with the how.
Please everyone, stop conflating science and theology.
Two different disciplines.
Theology is about being, and meaning, and purpose, and identity, discovering God.
Science is about genetics, and anthropology, and paleontology, etc…
The two can inform one another and work together, but they are different disciiplines .

 

[Teek]

To guard us from our subjective tendency to redefine objective truth to make it more comfortable for our own designs, Jesus Christ instituted the Church and gave it His authority.

For our protection, we are required to believe God when He Himself says that He is sending His Spirit to guide us to all truth…and that He instituted a Church to be our guarantee.

We are not required to believe because the Church thinks it is so intellectually superior to all other views and it must control everyone!!!

We are required to believe God. The Catholic Church actually is His. He can be trusted. He made the whole universe and all that…

One of my favorite theologians says this, “Humans are always seeking ‘motives of credibility’.”

For science, we take on faith what experts say. We can’t see it, or go watch their experimentation. We just believe them. We give our intellectual assent of faith. It is all just faith. The “motive of credibility” is the person’s scientific creditials. He’s a scientist!

I can think about a black hole all day and I can’t tell you whether Neil Degrasse Tyson is right or wrong. I can either accept his teaching or reject it. We usually do this based on his credibility as a scientist.

Stephen Hawking is a great example. He can say, and he did say, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” And people did not laugh their heads off!

People were like, “Oh, well Stephen Hawking knows what he is talking about!”

That doesn’t change the fact that his statement is absurd and meaningless! A “law such as gravity” is not nothing! As Cardinal George Pell once said in a debate with Richard Dawkins, “Your nothing begins to sound a lot like my something!”

So it is with the origin of man. I am a Biologist. With a theology degree. My colleagues used to bring me to their social gatherings like some kind of party trick. (I had more fun with that than I could ever adequately describe. They never expect you to make sense! Good times, good times.)

To believe all of the theories on the evolution of man takes an assent of faith to scientists with enormous imaginations. You can’t say that they are all wrong. But you cannot confirm that they are right, either.

All you have is “motives of credibility.” My assent goes to the Church, guided to Truth by the hand that Created the Universe.

The Church does not exclude the validity of science, even with the teaching on Adam and Eve. Some current scientific theories about the origin of man attempt to exclude the validity of the necessity or action of a Creator.

The scientists who attempt to exclude a necessary being would have to be able to prove their claims. They cannot. Making claims such as that makes them bad scientists with an alterior agenda. (See Charles Darwin.). Good science sticks to science.

 

[goout]

I added a small edit in bold

The Church does not exclude the validity of science, even with the teaching on Adam and Eve.
(Some) Current scientific theories about the origin of man attempt to exclude the validity of the necessity or action of a Creator.

Some. some scientists attempt to exclude God. Just like some Catholics choose to be ignorant of science. Some do, some don’t. Those who use one discipline to negate the other tend to be on the fringes.
I’m a geologist. And seriously, I know literally no geologist who propose the science as a theological argument. There are probably some who do that personally, but I don’t know any.
And I have never ,ever, without exception, read a geology or paleo textbook that discusses God.
Some in the field are atheist, but they don’t throw the science up as proof that God doesn’t exist. These simply don’t believe in God. The science probably informs their decision not to believe in some way. But that’s a slightly different matter.

It’s not good to feed the fundamentalist and fideist tendencies here.

 

[CAC]

I would imagine that you can be Catholic and be a questioning person. Questioning is a wonderful opportunity to see how God reveals Himself. While we can never fully understand God, I find that questioning often provides epiphany.

I believe that the first 5 books of the Bible are God’s word. Because of that I believe many would say that I am a fundamentalist. In Genesis, God is establishing His relationship with us, which includes sovereignty over our world (and everything for that matter) and let’s us know we are in a personal relationship with Him. God is not explaining evolution. God is beyond time and place. He is answering a different question. God is telling us how to live. It’s not just about Adam and Eve as historical people. It’s about us. God is talking to us.

There are many scientists who believe in God. As a Christian, I believe in science. What drives me crazy is how many evolutionists use it as proof that God doesn’t exist or that you are a non thinking, non rational person if you do.

Question science as you would God’s existence.

 

[CAC]

When I say God is answering a different question, I do not mean that our questioning came before God.

 

[Teek]

Some. some scientists attempt to exclude God. Just like some Catholics choose to be ignorant of science. Some do, some don’t. Those who use one discipline to negate the other tend to be on the fringes.

I’m a geologist. And seriously, I know literally no geologist who propose the science as a theological argument. There are probably some who do that personally, but I don’t know any.

I changed the wording to be more clear. Thanks.

I am a biologist. I have had a different experience regarding the frequency of encounter with scientific theories being driven by a theological narrative. It isn’t necessarily addressed in the papers submitted for publication. It is in the water-cooler type dialogue in the lab, the ridiculing of believers, and in just the intellectual disdain for anyone who still believes that the Creator had something to do with some invisible thing called “the soul” which somehow makes us more human than the apes.

You might not have encountered any scientist who would do this. I have never seen, in person, a Short-Tailed North Pacific Albatross. But they both exist, and are commonly encountered by those who happen to be in their natural habitat.

Oh—and I AM a scientist who believes strongly in a Creator and in the human soul. I may have not been clear in how I worded it, but I was not arguing that I do not exist. Lol. There are a ton of scientists who believe. I was discussing my concern with the ones that try to say science has excluded the need for God.

 

[Teek]

Question science as you would God’s existence.

Yay!! I love it! Inquiry leads to knowledge.

 

[edwest211]

There’s no evidence they were assimilated.

 

[edwest211]

A very good reply. Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s no evidence they were assimilated.

Please provide a method for providing evidence of the presence of a soul in a human. Once you come up with such a method, I’ll take your objection seriously.

 

[Teek]

Assimilated into human race (and therefore, their children would be ensouled) or died without producing human children. (Since the presence of a “truly human” parent results in a “truly human” child, it therefore acts in the way that “dominant genes” act. However, since there is no way for a “unensoulment” ‘recessive’ gene to exhibit, this ‘trait’ would necessarily die out.)

I’m trying this one on as sort of a thought experiment. For fun.

So, are we talking about the soul becoming a genetic trait?

 

[Gorgias]

I’m trying this one on as sort of a thought experiment. For fun.

So, are we talking about the soul becoming a genetic trait?

No. I’m merely mentioning that the offspring of an ensouled parent would be an ensouled child. In that sense (and that sense only), it works not entirely unlike dominant traits. The example breaks down inasmuch as there is no corresponding ‘recessive’ trait – that is, the child of an ensouled parent could never be bereft of a soul…

 

[Teek]

No. I’m merely mentioning that the offspring of an ensouled parent would be an ensouled child. In that sense (and that sense only), it works not entirely unlike dominant traits. The example breaks down inasmuch as there is no corresponding ‘recessive’ trait – that is, the child of an ensouled parent could never be bereft of a soul…

Oh, darn. Although that would have opened up an enormous theological can of
heretical worms, the spin-off pseudo science elements of that concept could have developed into a movie plot that may have been produced, and we could have become co-owners of a franchise that had thousands of teenagers dressing like our protagonists and chanting our names at Comic-Con every year. Ah, well. Maybe next time.

So we have two ensouled hominids (which we will henceforth call humans), and a whole population of un-ensouled hominids (henceforth called hominids).

The two humans have progeny, and their human progeny have progeny. The human-hominid mating leads only to human offspring.

So the humans can mate with hominids?

What are we proposing the soul introduces to the hominid that makes the human distinctively human while the hominid is not?
What are our defining characteristics of one with a soul? If yours differ from mine, let me know and I’ll rewind.

I would say the soul introduces second order consciousness. Awareness of being aware. The hominids would be aware. The humans would be aware of being aware, and aware of others’ awareness.

Theologically speaking, the humans would have awareness of a divine law and a pull to respond to it, which is a function of the soul. They could love for the sake of the other. They would have a conscience. The hominids would not. They would “love” because “love” was happening to them. It would not be a function of will, but a function of biology, because that is all they have.

The hominids would see the stars and be unaffected. The humans would see the stars and wonder at their existence and ask “Why?”

The two “species” would have a wide gulf between them almost immediately.

Adam looked at all of the animals and did not see a fit helper, but he recognized the soul in Eve and knew that this was equal footing. They could know and be known, and in knowing, they could love and be loved as an act of will.

Why would the hominids disappear? Rather quickly in this proposed population, humans would prefer other humans as “fit mates.” The hominids would no longer be considered fit mates. There would be no equality.

The hominids would still have each other to continue the species with, and so they would not necessarily die out.

If the soul were a gradual evolutionary development, it would not generate a sudden divide. But the jump from no soul to a soul would be massive.

Tell me what you think.

(This is a response to the proposed assimilation of the hominids as a thought experiment. An imaginary excercise. Not a theological or scientific argument or statement. Please just ignore if you aren’t interested in considering what the interaction between two humans and a population of hominids would look like.)

 

[edwest211]

No, this is nicely done. The soul does not exist for science so these hominids could still be alive today. They would not be fit mates for true humans, so the problem remains: What happened to them? Just died out is not a credible reply.

 

[LittleFlower]

Catholic Answers has answered this in two posts:

Adam, Eve, and Evolution and Adam and Eve were real people

 

[Gorgias]

Although that would have opened up an enormous theological can of
heretical worms, the spin-off pseudo science elements of that concept could have developed into a movie plot that may have been produced, and we could have become co-owners of a franchise that had thousands of teenagers dressing like our protagonists and chanting our names at Comic-Con every year. Ah, well. Maybe next time.

Dang. Lemme think a little about it…

Nah. “Gorgias Roddenberry” just doesn’t have that ‘ring’ to it…

So the humans can mate with hominids?

Biologically, they’re compatible, if not identical, so … yes!

What are we proposing the soul introduces to the hominid that makes the human distinctively human while the hominid is not?

Well… the soul itself.

Theologically speaking, the imago Dei doesn’t have anything to do with our physical bodies (after all, God doesn’t have a physical body, so that can’t be the way we ‘image’ him and have ‘likeness’ to him). Rather, that “image and likeness” proceeds from our eternal soul. So, it is precisely the human soul that makes us human and not merely ‘animal.’

What are our defining characteristics of one with a soul? If yours differ from mine, let me know and I’ll rewind.

• image and likeness of God
• made for eternal life
• free will

I would say the soul introduces second order consciousness. Awareness of being aware. The hominids would be aware. The humans would be aware of being aware, and aware of others’ awareness.

That’s an interesting supposition. It falls, strictly speaking, in the realm of science. While it might have merit, I’m going to defer addressing it, since I’m primarily interested in the theological case we’re making, not the physically / empirically verifiable implications…

The hominids would see the stars and be unaffected. The humans would see the stars and wonder at their existence and ask “Why?”

Interestingly, that’s the type of questions that ‘origins’ scientists tend to ask (since, I’d guess, they’re the wildly intriguing and romantic question).

The two “species” would have a wide gulf between them almost immediately.

Perhaps. Yet, we look at Neandertals and recognize that their DNA exists in our bodies – clearly, ‘modern’ humans mated with Neandertals 100K years ago or so. The “wide gulf” doesn’t preclude mating …

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

continuing…

Adam looked at all of the animals and did not see a fit helper, but he recognized the soul in Eve and knew that this was equal footing.

Well… first off, I think we’re treating this narrative too literally, as if it were scientifically or historically factual.

That being said, all the narrative of Genesis 2 says is that God presented Adam with ‘cattle’ and ‘beasts’ and ‘birds’. I think our thesis is still safe.

In any case, if we’re going to go full-on mind-bogglingly literalistic, then Adam picks Eve because of physical, not spiritual, characteristics.

Why would the hominids disappear? Rather quickly in this proposed population, humans would prefer other humans as “fit mates.” The hominids would no longer be considered fit mates. There would be no equality.

I’m not sure about that.

I’m thinking, in particular, of our own sad state of affairs here in the States (although the experience is mirrored throughout the world): in a very literal way, slaveholders made the case that black people weren’t human. However, that did not keep white men from seeking out black women for sex (and subsequently, giving birth to children). Even more interestingly, these children were not afforded the rights that other, ‘purebred’ children inherited.

The same thing has happened all over the world, wherever ‘civilized’ men came in contact with ‘primitive’ women.

If the soul were a gradual evolutionary development, it would not generate a sudden divide. But the jump from no soul to a soul would be massive.

It would, but I don’t think it would prevent sexual activity and childbearing.