Genesis, Ed Feser and Dr. Bonnette

[cfauster]

On the left side of the home page, you will find the complete text of my article, “A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape Language Studies,” … you will find a rather complete analysis of the radical differences between mere animal communication and true human speech. Further, I would maintain that possession of true intellect simultaneously enables any hominin having it to engage both in true speech as well as other forms of intellective activity.

Those articles on your website are good reads, including the two-part piece on language studies!

Tattersall and you seem to share the view that there is a very big difference between animal and human speech. I agree as well. As far as I know, Austriaco would too.

Austriaco, Tattersall, and you all seem to share the view that true human speech shows that the speaker possesses true human intellect. I agree as well.

Tattersall seems to think true human speech and true human intellect were not possessed by Neanderthals, whereas you think they were. To me, that comes down to how one evaluates the available behavior-indicating artifacts we’ve found associated with Neanderthal and even earlier Homo remains. I lean towards your position, but remain tentative. I’m not sure, but it seems as though Austriaco might, like Tattersall, lean towards the more recent time (no more than 200K years ago) rather than 500K or so years ago you and I prefer.

Austriaco and you accept the reality of the spiritual soul. Differences between you concerning the human soul are more subtle than I can grasp at this point. The one difference I can see is that Austriaco thinks the first human souls might have numbered more than two. In contrast, you think there must have been two, and that the woman’s (Eve’s) body somehow came from the man’s (Adam’s) body, maybe in utero from monozygoic twins, for example. In Austriaco’s scenario, there might be fraternal twins, or not necessarily twins at all, but instead siblings from different pregnancies. At one time in my life I too was interested in speculating about such things as these, and also about the biological details of the Virgin Birth. Though that interest has lessened for me personally, I’m glad to know where I can point students or others for whom such questions are currently important.

Thanks again. Keep shining your light!

cfauster

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Those articles on your website are good reads, including the two-part piece on language studies!

Tattersall and you seem to share the view that there is a very big difference between animal and human speech. I agree as well. As far as I know, Austriaco would too.

Austriaco, Tattersall, and you all seem to share the view that true human speech shows that the speaker possesses true human intellect. I agree as well.

Tattersall seems to think true human speech and true human intellect were not possessed by Neanderthals, whereas you think they were. To me, that comes down to how one evaluates the available behavior-indicating artifacts we’ve found associated with Neanderthal and even earlier Homo remains. I lean towards your position, but remain tentative. I’m not sure, but it seems as though Austriaco might, like Tattersall, lean towards the more recent time (no more than 200K years ago) rather than 500K or so years ago you and I prefer.

Austriaco and you accept the reality of the spiritual soul. Differences between you concerning the human soul are more subtle than I can grasp at this point. The one difference I can see is that Austriaco thinks the first human souls might have numbered more than two. In contrast, you think there must have been two, and that the woman’s (Eve’s) body somehow came from the man’s (Adam’s) body, maybe in utero from monozygoic twins, for example. In Austriaco’s scenario, there might be fraternal twins, or not necessarily twins at all, but instead siblings from different pregnancies. At one time in my life I too was interested in speculating about such things as these, and also about the biological details of the Virgin Birth. Though that interest has lessened for me personally, I’m glad to know where I can point students or others for whom such questions are currently important.

Thanks again. Keep shining your light!

cfauster

I strongly suspect that Tattersall and I would disagree about the meaning of “true human intellect.” In the A-T view, intellect is a spiritual faculty of the human spiritual soul. I don’t think Tattersall would ever go down that route.

If Tattersall denies that Neanderthals had true human intellect, then philosophically I would infer that they were in a distinct subhuman natural species. This entails serious problems, since Neanderthals and Denisovans appear to have interbred with modern humans. For the Thomist, any sign of true intellect requires that the person with the intellect is a true human being (which is why I say “person”). While Neanderthals may not exhibit all the intellectual abilities of modern humans, if they possessed any such powers at all, they were true men, belonging to the same natural species as you and I. If both Neanderthals and we are true men, then the branching of them from us some 600,000 years ago would appear to imply some common true human ancestor to both branches. Hence, Adam must appear at an earlier time than many believe, since, at least in Catholic doctrine, all true men are descendants of Adam.

Austriaco’s apparent claim that the first human parents might have numbered more than two entails him embracing polygenism, which I would strongly maintain is not sound Catholic doctrine. My efforts, and those of Dr. Feser, are aimed at showing how natural science comports fully with the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, that is, that all true humans are descendants of a single pair of first true human parents, Adam and Eve.

The direct and positive teaching of Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis about monogenism is clear. He writes: “…the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, … [that it] proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” Regardless of whatever theory one may want to propose about polygenism, unless a Catholic wants to say that the very scholarly Pius XII was in essential error about what revelation and the documents of the Magisterium actually teach about human origins, the basic truths entailed by monogenism must be maintained. Saying that there was more than one individual Adam from whom all are descended is clearly inconsistent with this positive papal teaching about the content of Catholic doctrine.

Again, I appreciate your interest in, and you very objective analysis of, the arguments and positions of those scholars of human origins discussed on this thread.

God bless…

 

[cfauster]

Thank you, Dr. Bonnette.

I hope Catholics appreciate the generosity of scholars such as you and Rev. Austriaco in making so much rich fruit from your labors freely available. To have a dialogue like this on CAF with you is also special.

In your last post you mentioned Humani Generis and for readers’ convenience, I wanted to note how Rev. Austriaco deals with that important encyclical. Here is an excerpt from a longer essay:

*In other words, at face value, Pope Pius XII ruled out polygenism because he could not imagine how an account of several original first couples could be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. As we will discuss in the essays that follow, this is not surprising because scientists in 1950 believed that the human race was descended from several original first non-human couples who were scattered throughout the planet.

As we will also see, scientists today now think that our species is descended from several first human couples living in the same geographical area. Therefore, in the fourth essay on the historicity of Adam and Eve, I will propose that this contemporary scientific account on human origins can be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. Thus, I will argue that an account of polygenism that is in accord with everything that we know and believe about original sin remains true to the magisterial statement of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis.

Significantly, Pope Pius XII makes no mention of the Genesis text in his encyclical, because for Catholics, the disputed question over the historicity of Adam and Eve does not involve a debate over whether the biblical text should be interpreted literally or not. As we have discussed in earlier essays in this series on evolution and Christian faith, for the Catholic Christian, biblical interpretation is a work of both faith and reason that seeks to read the sacred text in line with all truth, theological and scientific, both of which have their source in God. It is a task that is guided by the Holy Spirit who continues to work within and through His Catholic Church.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the International Theological Commission chaired at that time by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, published a theological statement on evolution that is open to polygenism. In its document, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, published in 2004, the Commission acknowledges that the scientific evidence points to a polygenic origin for our species: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage” (no. 63). We will discuss this scientific evidence in the next essay in this series on evolution and Christian faith.

The Commission then makes the following theological claim: “Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention” (no. 70, my emphasis). This suggests that both monogenism and certain types of polygenism remain viable theological opinions for Catholic theologians seeking to be faithful to the doctrinal tradition.*

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To CFauster:

With regard to the claims made by Fr. Austriaco about monogenism and polygenism and the International Theological Commission:

First, regarding Fr. Austriaco’s own position, the text you cite from him clearly affirms theological polygenism. He approvingly states that “… scientists today now think that our species is descended from several first human couples ….” He claims that “…this contemporary scientific account on human origins can be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin.”

This is simply not the case. As I wrote in my peer-reviewed entry on “Monogenism and Polygenism” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy, “Although Pius XII clearly forbade acceptance of polygenism, his positive affirmation of monogenism is far more significant. Humani generis professes that “revealed truth and… the magisterium of the Church teach” that original sin “proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam ab uno Adamo],” which is “transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own” (sec. 37).” As I also wrote there, this teaching by Pius XII is rooted in defined Catholic doctrine: “In 1546, the COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session V, underlined St. Paul’s teaching when it referred to Adam as “himself alone” (sibi soli) in its dogmatic definitions on original sin (n. 2: Denzinger-Hünermann 2010, 1512).” Further, as the Council of Trent affirms, this original sin is found in all true men “by generation” from Adam – thus entirely removing the possibility of other contemporaneous genuine human beings who were not Adam’s descendants.

Fr. Austriaco’s claim that we modern humans are “descended from several first human couples” simply cannot be rendered logically compatible with the clear Catholic teaching that all true human beings are descended from a single individual first human being, Adam.

Fr. Austriaco also notes that “…that the International Theological Commission chaired at that time by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, published a theological statement on evolution that is open to polygenism."

While this is true, the simple fact is that the ITC is not a part of the official Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is merely an advisory body consisting of up to thirty Catholic theologians appointed by the pope. Its documents are not considered expressions of authoritative church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger was not pope when he merely chaired the ITC. One cannot conclude to any change in the official position of the Magisterium from such speculative advisory statements – especially, when it is clear such a change would oppose the dogmatically affirmed theological monogism demonstrated above.

Even more curiously, I note the following claim from the ITC document cited: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage” (no. 63).” This claim is itself scientifically doubtful, since, as I have noted in my book, Origin of the Human Species – Third Edition, evidence of hominins with true human intellectual powers dates back at least some 750,000 years: “Today, those artistic Acheulean stone hand axes, as well as possibly controlled use of fire are dated back to somewhere around the early Middle Pleistocene period, some three-quarters of a million years ago.” (Preface to the Third Edition, p. xiv.) The ITC claim of “about 150,000 years ago” for true human origins is highly questionable to say the least.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you, Dr. Bonnette, for your clear and helpful post.

Indeed, apparently the ITC was equating the first true humans with anatomically and behaviorally modern Homo sapiens rather than earlier archaic Homo, but I tend to agree with you that the best evidence available diminishes the relevant difference previously assumed to exist between Homo sapiens and archaic forms.

Obviously it is not my place to get involved in debates between Catholic A-T philosophy/theology scholars. As an outsider, I respect both 1) the vigorous defense of the truth any careful and qualified scholar honestly sees as consistent with the Catholic Magisterium, and 2) the continuing assumption that despite disagreements, people with divergent views on some details can still be faithful Catholics. Of course, if beliefs lie outside the bounds of the Catholic faith, proper authorities may need to take action and clarify things. But the absence of any such official suppression of Rev. Austriaco, for example, to me constitutes a strength, rather than weakness, of the Catholic Church.

God bless, and thanks again.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Thank you, Dr. Bonnette, for your clear and helpful post.

Indeed, apparently the ITC was equating the first true humans with anatomically and behaviorally modern Homo sapiens rather than earlier archaic Homo, but I tend to agree with you that the best evidence available diminishes the relevant difference previously assumed to exist between Homo sapiens and archaic forms.

Obviously it is not my place to get involved in debates between Catholic A-T philosophy/theology scholars. As an outsider, I respect both 1) the vigorous defense of the truth any careful and qualified scholar honestly sees as consistent with the Catholic Magisterium, and 2) the continuing assumption that despite disagreements, people with divergent views on some details can still be faithful Catholics. Of course, if beliefs lie outside the bounds of the Catholic faith, proper authorities may need to take action and clarify things. But the absence of any such official suppression of Rev. Austriaco, for example, to me constitutes a strength, rather than weakness, of the Catholic Church.

God bless, and thanks again.

I have enjoyed your very positive contributions to this thread, CFauster.

Fr. Austriaco is a good priest and dedicated Dominican scholar. I have no interest in seeing him “suppressed” in his teaching. I would, though, hope that he will eventually see that he is wrong about polygenism and the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The whole concept of Catholic dogma is that these teachings, such as those of the Council of Trent, are not subject to change in their essential definitions. That is why the dogmatic definition of Trent on original sin that refers to Adam as “himself alone” (sibi soli) cannot be revised in that specific content, since it is an affirmative teaching – independent of the existence of various present or future scientific theories or problems. So, too, the teaching of Trent on the propagation of original sin is “de fide.” And since the existence of a single, individual Adam is dogmatically confirmed as the source of original sin’s propagation to all true men, monogenism is not merely a teaching of Humani Generis, but the unchanging and unchangeable doctrine of the Catholic Church – a teaching to which true science must ultimately bear witness, or, at least can never validly challenge.

Again, thanks again for your very balanced and constructive contributions.

And God bless

 

[Faith1960]

One minor point: As far as I know Fr. Austriaco does not hold theological monogenism, or at least did not do so, even very recently. Has he changed his position? I realize that it is within the realm of Catholic theology, but I maintain that the Catholic Church has never changed its insistence on theological monogenism as expressed by Pius XII in Humani Generis.

.

I know this is an old thread, but I have a question concerning what Dr. Bonnette said. What did he mean in his last sentence?

That it’s ok for Catholics to believe that Adam and Eve were among other hominids that weren’t human by Catholic standards because they didn’t have human souls, (but were human or human-like by scientific standards), and that God infused a human soul into Adam and Eve and their offspring, then they interbred with these other hominids?

 

[Faith1960]

I know this is an old thread, but I have a question concerning what Dr. Bonnette said. What did he mean in his last sentence?

That it’s ok for Catholics to believe that Adam and Eve were among other hominids that weren’t human by Catholic standards because they didn’t have human souls, (but were human or human-like by scientific standards), and that God infused a human soul into Adam and Eve and their offspring, then they interbred with these other hominids?

Anyone?