Evolution and Pelagianism

[ThomasToo]

I hope this thread is allowed per the guidelines regarding threads on evolution and atheism, if not please delete it.

Please assume evolution for the purposes of this question.

I don’t see how in a worldview deprived of a singular first man and woman, a garden in Eden, a deceiving [talking!?] serpent and a tree of knowledge the doctrine of original sin can hold. It seems that Darwinism necessarily implies Pelagianism.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Julian0404]

ThomasToo, being that you practice the religion of NULL and that you hold to Darwin, your view is understandable. Before Father Martin Luther died, he expressed his frustration over the impact his schism made, in that now “…every bar maid thinks they can explain the bible…” - paraphrase Ref: Crossing The Tiber by Steve Ray.

The Isrealites had three foundations in teaching 1) The teaching authority of Moses 2) The rabbinical teachers who learned from Moses and the prophets and passed it on, 3) The Tora - Old Testament.

The Catholic Church follows the exact format, 1. The Pope 2. The Magesterium 3. The Bible.

Father Martin Luther, in creating the schism, denied the Pope and the Magesterium and therefore was left with only “sola scriptura”, the scriptures alone.

My point being, your limited knowledge and limited reliance upon an atheist to set your course in life through the denial of original sin, is a precarious and eternal decision, which with some forethought should lead you to conclude, “one opinion, from an avowed atheist, is insufficient for me to rest my eternity upon, and I should test this idea further before declaring I disbelieve”.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

My point being, your limited knowledge and limited reliance upon an atheist to set your course in life through the denial of original sin, is a precarious and eternal decision, which with some forethought should lead you to conclude, “one opinion, from an avowed atheist, is insufficient for me to rest my eternity upon, and I should test this idea further before declaring I disbelieve”.

What i don’t like about this is atheists tend to base their views on the combined knowledge of humanity, not one “opinion form an avowed atheist”. On the other hand you base your life on a book written by a bunch of humans (yes the bible was written by humans) that had little to no understanding of the cosmos.

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo, being that you practice the religion of NULL and that you hold to Darwin, your view is understandable. Before Father Martin Luther died, he expressed his frustration over the impact his schism made, in that now “…every bar maid thinks they can explain the bible…” - paraphrase Ref: Crossing The Tiber by Steve Ray.

The Isrealites had three foundations in teaching 1) The teaching authority of Moses 2) The rabbinical teachers who learned from Moses and the prophets and passed it on, 3) The Tora - Old Testament.

The Catholic Church follows the exact format, 1. The Pope 2. The Magesterium 3. The Bible.

Father Martin Luther, in creating the schism, denied the Pope and the Magesterium and therefore was left with only “sola scriptura”, the scriptures alone.

My point being, your limited knowledge and limited reliance upon an atheist to set your course in life through the denial of original sin, is a precarious and eternal decision, which with some forethought should lead you to conclude, “one opinion, from an avowed atheist, is insufficient for me to rest my eternity upon, and I should test this idea further before declaring I disbelieve”.

Due respect but I said nothing about Luther and I never claimed to be able to interpret the Bible. Please do not assume on my (lack of) forethought in my religious decisions or my ‘limited knowledge.’ You do not know me and it seems unfair to presume that I am ignorant.

I’m asking how the concept of original sin is reconciled with modern scientific thought. If you are saying it can’t (‘you hold to Darwin [and so] your view is understandable’) then that is fine but my lack of religion is not at question here. For the purposes of this discussion I am willing to stipulate the entire body of Church teaching and ask my question in that my context; this was, in fact, my intention. I’m sorry if I caused any confusions on this point.

 

[grannymh]

I hope this thread is allowed per the guidelines regarding threads on evolution and atheism, if not please delete it.

Please assume evolution for the purposes of this question.

I don’t see how in a worldview deprived of a singular first man and woman, a garden in Eden, a deceiving [talking!?] serpent and a tree of knowledge the doctrine of original sin can hold. It seems that Darwinism necessarily implies Pelagianism.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

What a coincidence! I am a direct descendent of Thomas the Apostle.

Since natural science, by definition, is strictly in the material/physical realm, I have a hard time with any scientific theory necessarily implying anything involving the spiritual realm. Darwin’s philosophical position, that all reality including humanity is material, excludes the immaterial or spiritual elements of the human person. From this point of view, Pelagianism or any religious type ism which basically involves faith would be excluded because the spiritual does not exist for those who operate on the basis of a materialistic philosophy.

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[ThomasToo]

Since natural science, by definition, is strictly in the material/physical realm, I have a hard time with any scientific theory necessarily implying anything involving the spiritual realm.

Darwin’s philosophical position, that all reality including humanity is material, excludes the immaterial or spiritual elements of the human person. From this point of view, Pelagianism which basically involves faith would be excluded because the spiritual does not exist for those who operate on the basis of a materialistic philosophy.

I’m not so much supporting his naturalistic philosophy, at least for the purposes of this thread. I think that insofar as scientific theory shows that some answers religion used to give for natural phenomena (e.g. the origin of man) and from which religion derived spiritual principles (e.g. original sin) are not true.

This is hardly unique to Christianity; every creation myth has been shown untrue though not being a scholar of such things I’m sure similar issues spring in other religions as well.

 

[Non_Serviam]

So Thomas, you are positing a world where there is still a God? Otherwise, sans God, there is no objective good and evil for your Pelagian to choose between-and without that, no Pelagianism.

 

[ThomasToo]

So Thomas, you are positing a world where there is still a God? Otherwise, sans God, there is no objective good and evil for your Pelagian to choose between-and without that, no Pelagianism.

For the purposes of this conversation I’m willing to stipulate almost all of the body of Catholic theology while we solve for the question of original sin given the reality of evolution.

 

[Non_Serviam]

For the purposes of this conversation I’m willing to stipulate almost all of the body of Catholic theology while we solve for the question of original sin given the reality of evolution.

OK, does that stipulation extend to the point made by Catholics who believe in evolution JP2 style that at some point specific evolved primates were “ensouled” by God and thus became responsible moral entities?

 

[ThomasToo]

OK, does that stipulation extend to the point made by Catholics who believe in evolution JP2 style that at some point specific evolved primates were “ensouled” by God and thus became responsible moral entities?

Ok, but then those first ensouled humans are still morally responsible for the inherent sinfulness of all humanity? When we’re dealing in an Adam and Eve situation I can almost get there, intellectually, that the fruit of the Tree caused a fundamental ontological change in Adam and Eve and their progeny (I don’t know about Cain’s wife and the other residents of the Land of Nod but let’s not talk about them).

Did the first ensouled humans, call them Adam 2.0 and Eve 2.0, sin on behalf of all humanity? It hardly seems just. I grant that people do sin and are given to sin but knowing that we probably will doesn’t quite get us to an inherent sinfulness of infants. You may disagree with me on this point, if so I would like to see where I’ve gone wrong.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ok, but then those first ensouled humans are still morally responsible for the inherent sinfulness of all humanity? When we’re dealing in an Adam and Eve situation I can almost get there, intellectually, that the fruit of the Tree caused a fundamental ontological change in Adam and Eve and their progeny (I don’t know about Cain’s wife and the other residents of the Land of Nod but let’s not talk about them).

Did the first ensouled humans, call them Adam 2.0 and Eve 2.0, sin on behalf of all humanity? It hardly seems just. I grant that people do sin and are given to sin but knowing that we probably will doesn’t quite get us to an inherent sinfulness of infants. You may disagree with me on this point, if so I would like to see where I’ve gone wrong.

Just as the Genesis account is considered by those who hold to theistic evolution to contain a symbolic/mythological description of the process by which humans appeared on earth, could not the incident in the garden be symbolic of something that occurred, that resulted in cosequences later known as original sin?

When you reach this point, one’s definition of “original sin” plays a large role in the results one ends up with.

What is clear is that the normal understanding of original sin has two parts, the “stain” that impacts our standing before God and the aspect of original sin that affects our furture choices and actions, moving us in the direction of sin.

MY personal understanding of that has always been that the “stain” aspect is a matter of mental bookkeeping in the mind of God, the negative balance caused by whatever the Tree represents, while the ongoing part refers to some defect of consciousness that makes it much easier for us to make moral misjudgments (something akin to attribution bias perhaps, but on a moral level rather than perceived intent) and rationalize sin.

The catholic understanding likely differs from that in one or more points.

 

[ThomasToo]

Just as the Genesis account is considered by those who hold to theistic evolution to contain a symbolic/mythological description of the process by which humans appeared on earth, could not the incident in the garden be symbolic of something that occurred, that resulted in cosequences later known as original sin?

When you reach this point, one’s definition of “original sin” plays a large role in the results one ends up with…

The catholic understanding likely differs from that in one or more points.

But what real action could have occurred to so stain all of humanity? Like I said, it seems like in a natural world (without talking snakes or mythical trees) no such action could exist. It seems unjust for the sins of the parents to be visited upon the children (Exodus 34.7) which seems to be the principle under which the notion of original sin fits.

 

[Non_Serviam]

But what real action could have occurred to so stain all of humanity? Like I said, it seems like in a natural world (without talking snakes or mythical trees) no such action could exist. It seems unjust for the sins of the parents to be visited upon the children (Exodus 34.7) which seems to be the principle under which the notion of original sin fits.

I must confess to not knowing the exact nature of the action, but we must remember that even sans tree and serpent, we aren’t in a purely natural world, but rather one with a previously stipulated supernatural God and some angels thrown in for good measure. (what’s a star without a chorus?)

Assuming that our pre “Fall” consciousness was able to interact with God (and possibly the angels) and that post “Fall” our consciousness was more directly focussed on the natural and now contained such states as guilt, confusion, etc. it is quite possible that we are no longer able to conceive of an action that would register such offense with these spiritual beings that such a universal “debt” would result. Hence the need for the symbol of the Tree.

 

[ThomasToo]

I must confess to not knowing the exact nature of the action, but we must remember that even sans tree and serpent, we aren’t in a purely natural world, but rather one with a previously stipulated supernatural God and some angels thrown in for good measure. (what’s a star without a chorus?)

Assuming that our pre “Fall” consciousness was able to interact with God (and possibly the angels) and that post “Fall” our consciousness was more directly focussed on the natural and now contained such states as guilt, confusion, etc. it is quite possible that we are no longer able to conceive of an action that would register such offense with these spiritual beings that such a universal “debt” would result. Hence the need for the symbol of the Tree.

I more intended natural world insofar as we have disallowed sudden, rapid and non-evolutionary change to human beings; or at least I did.

Is this a neurological change then? Frankly, I’m hard pressed–even assuming Christianity–to believe that there is some singular, unknown and unknowable event that happened at some point in our [very distant] past that fundamentally changed the nature of human consciousness. Then again, I always was a bad Christian…

I also don’t see how an action by any one person can fundamentally change the moral status of any other person (and billions of times more so for every other person); I’ve mentioned this several times and it seems like you’re missing it every time I have. My parents are, by almost every accounting, great people but I’d still rather not be punished for their transgressions and I think you would agree.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I more intended natural world insofar as we have disallowed sudden, rapid and non-evolutionary change to human beings; or at least I did.

Is this a neurological change then? Frankly, I’m hard pressed–even assuming Christianity–to believe that there is some singular, unknown and unknowable event that happened at some point in our [very distant] past that fundamentally changed the nature of human consciousness. Then again, I always was a bad Christian…

I also don’t see how an action by any one person can fundamentally change the moral status of any other person (and billions of times more so for every other person); I’ve mentioned this several times and it seems like you’re missing it every time I have. My parents are, by almost every accounting, great people but I’d still rather not be punished for their transgressions and I think you would agree.

Thomas, I must confess that it’s late here and I’m getting sleepy. But before I go, I’ll share a couple of thoughts that our exchange has brought up. First off, rest assured that no one on this site is looking to award me a blue ribbon for my beliefs-in that we have common ground.

Next, I thought of a physiological incident that had such an effect at the genetic level that both the individuals who experienced the event and offspring conceived afterwards were affected by it. The atomic blast at Hiroshima (to that we could add Nagasaki and Chernobyl if necessary, but I think you get the concept).

Does this mean I think God and the Devil engaged in a limited thermonuclear war? No, but it does show that even on a purely natural evel actions can affect individuals and their future generations. Likewise if you look into some of the recent research on mirror neurons and how parent’s experiences prior to and those of the mother during pregancy can impact the physiological development of the child (i.e. a high fat diet on the part of the mother impacts whether the child’s fat receptors are open or closed relative to those of the child of a mother who had a low-fat diet.)

As for the single act affecting many, think of a declaration of war by the leader of a country. This act by a single person affects the relative moral standing of all citizens of both countries.

Finally, human culture is based on a series of units (including humanity as the largest) and had my parents failed to pay their mortgage I would have been homeless as well, even though I had undertaken no agreement with the bank. As a family unit our fates were intertwined to a certain degree. Thus it is possible that an offence against God could engender a similar intertwining of the fates of Adam 2.0 and Eve 2.0 with their furute generations (aka humanity).

Please keep in mind that I offer these examples to demonstrate that my proposed solution is plausible, rather than being the solution themselves.

And with that I bid you a good night-take care and perhaps we can continue tomorrow.

 

[murmur]

Hello, I will first issue a question I have, then I will address this topic.

I’m reaching back far into my memory here. I’m trying to bring up some Catholic school knowledge. Weren’t the gates of heaven closed because of the fall? The sin of Adam separated us from God. Yet, if I recall, the gates were reopened with the sacrifice Jesus paid for with his life. We were again able to join with God in heaven. If this is the case, would not Jesus’ sacrifice be payment for Adam’s transgressions? You would think the sacrifice of Jesus would be payment enough for any past wrong. Indeed, it is said that he purchased the salvation of the entire world. Would not the sacrifice of the divine be payment enough for any sin committed by one man?

Now, to this topic. I have my own question about the Garden of Eden, but it does not directly apply, so I suppose I will need to make a new thread in the next few days when I’m free enough to formulate it correctly. This topic discusses the ability of the son to carry the burden of the father. I’ve seen many bible quotes that attest to that. I will spare you of them, unless someone would like me to post them. I have researched this topic a few weeks, and so, have some sources already.

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”
2. (Ezekiel 18:20) - “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

These are two I’ve come across. These would clearly contradict a “passing on” of sin. These seem to go against the idea that Original Sin is upon all of us. It says that each shall be accountable for their own sins, no others. This contradiction makes it difficult to believe either side, since both have their own sources that support them.

.murmur.

 

[grannymh]

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”
2. (Ezekiel 18:20) - “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

These are two I’ve come across. These would clearly contradict a “passing on” of sin. These seem to go against the idea that Original Sin is upon all of us. It says that each shall be accountable for their own sins, no others. This contradiction makes it difficult to believe either side, since both have their own sources that support them.

.murmur.

These two passages do not contradict the Catholic concept of Original Sin because Catholicism recognizes two kinds of sin in regard to Adam, contracted sin and actual or personal sin. The above quotes refer to actual or personal sins committed by descendents of Adam. In some of his writings, St. Paul refers to contracted sin due to Adam. This can occur when St. Paul is writing about the salvific mission of Jesus Christ, true God and true man. It should be noted that often Catholicism stands apart from other Christian religions because of its long history of involvement with Holy Scripture.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[grannymh]

But what real action could have occurred to so stain all of humanity? Like I said, it seems like in a natural world (without talking snakes or mythical trees) no such action could exist. It seems unjust for the sins of the parents to be visited upon the children (Exodus 34.7) which seems to be the principle under which the notion of original sin fits.

You can forget the phrase “stain all of humanity”. The idea of stain comes from long ago teachers who were trying to make Original Sin understandable. One of the best things that the Catholic Church has done in current years is to publish an universal Catechism. While I have had to reread and reread its sections on Adam and Original Sin, I am now finding that Catholicism is making logical sense.

You can also skip talking snakes and mythical fruit trees. The Catholic Church recognizes the figurative or symbolic ways the real devil is described. (Halloween costumes weren’t on sale back then.) This kind of description does not change the real meaning of sin or the fact that Adam and Eve actually existed as the first human beings who were created in friendship with their Creator.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[grannymh]

But what real action could have occurred to so stain all of humanity?

In order to understand Original Sin from the Catholic position, one should realize that Catholicism for the most part stands alone in its historical understanding which dates back to St. Paul and then back to the Old Testament. Pelagianism as a denial of Original Sin is alive and well today.

In regard to Genesis, Catholicism seeks to understand Divine Revelation. Thus, naming the real sinful action of Adam is not as important as understanding its nature.

The following is Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 397-409.

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in His goodness.
In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned Him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.”

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

For the purposes of this conversation I’m willing to stipulate almost all of the body of Catholic theology while we solve for the question of original sin given the reality of evolution.

Before I leave this thread,
the problem with this stipulation is the lack of knowledge regarding Catholic teaching. Personally, my source for Catholicism is listed below. It does take time to get used to the style of writing and to follow cross-references in the margins. A plus is that the footnotes contain sources going back to Scripture and then continuing forward through the centuries.

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the pinnacle of God’s creation.