Genesis, Ed Feser and Dr. Bonnette

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice to read the various comments made on this thread thus far.

Anyone interested in seeing a more complete defense of a literal Adam and Eve may want to read an article by me more recently published in the peer reviewed Spanish Thomist philosophical journal, Espiritu. And yes, Faith1960, it defends theological monogenism in great detail.

You can read it in English by clicking on Texto completo at this site:
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5244649

I have an even more detailed philosophical article scheduled for publication in the peer reviewed American theological journal,* Nova et Vetera*, probably in early 2017.

It is important for people to know that solid, evidence based, natural science comports with belief in a literal Adam and Eve – and that such belief need not be based upon the questionable scientific claims of young Earth creationism.
 
Thank you, Dr. Bonnette, for providing the link to your recent article. The link to your previous article, provided in the original post of this thread three years ago, no longer works.

Faith1960 continued exploring the topic this year in a couple of threads, most recently this one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1008611
I’m glad to see that some resolution emerged.

Thanks again, and God bless.
 
Hi CFauster,

I am amazed anyone is still looking at this old thread!

I am also amazed that link to me ever did work, since I simply do not recognize it as a valid one. The best alternative is simply to go to my web site at drbonnette.com

Moreover, the article I just linked to in Espiritu is superior to any of my other ones – so I would urge viewers simply to read the new one.

Perhaps, I can track down Faith1960 and give some encouragement.

Thanks for you kind words and my best to you.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Hi CFauster,
I am amazed anyone is still looking at this old thread!
Click to expand...
Fortunately when I check CAF it lists threads in chronological order by most recent post, rather than by when the thread started!

Though I do not agree with every detail in your papers, I appreciate several things about your approach, including your engagement with scientific as well as philosophical and theological truth.

I teach molecular genetics. When students have questions such as Faith1960’s question, I try to point students to resources available within their own faith tradition that can help. I have no interest, for example, in trying to convert a Catholic into a Lutheran. In contrast, I try to put Catholic students with questions in touch with Catholic information and Catholic people who can help.

For some Catholics, the theological monogenism of Feser, Kemp, and Austriaco has been very helpful.

As far as I can tell, your theological monogenism is similar in some ways to their proposals, but your approach is also distinctive in some ways.

Best wishes.
 
Thank your for your kind comments CFauster.

I would think that Catholics and Lutherans share a common belief in a single pair of literal first human parents, Adam and Eve. Am I not right? I would not expect us to share all the theological content of my paper, but I would think that defending the literal existence of the one who committed original sin would be an essential presupposition of faith for both of us. Otherwise, there is no need for the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

As a professor of molecular genetics yourself, I would be interested in knowing your reaction to that section of my Espiritu article. Of course, it is “backed up” by the possibility of interspecific interbreeding, which Feser and Kemp have proposed.

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 appreciate your positive and polite (name removed by moderator)ut into this Catholic forum.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Thank your for your kind comments CFauster.

I would think that Catholics and Lutherans share a common belief in a single pair of literal first human parents, Adam and Eve. Am I not right? I would not expect us to share all the theological content of my paper, but I would think that defending the literal existence of the one who committed original sin would be an essential presupposition of faith for both of us. Otherwise, there is no need for the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

As a professor of molecular genetics yourself, I would be interested in knowing your reaction to that section of my Espiritu article. Of course, it is “backed up” by the possibility of interspecific interbreeding, which Feser and Kemp have proposed.

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 appreciate your positive and polite (name removed by moderator)ut into this Catholic forum.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, Lutherans and Catholics have much in common, including an understanding of our need for the Savior because of human sin. We share the understanding that an infant is not too young to be baptized. We share the understanding that our history as a species includes both the distinction of being made in the image of God, but also the reality of our earliest ancestors choosing a wrong direction, away from God. Thus, if we are to live out our baptism as children “adopted” by God in Christ, we must grow in grace and daily repent, turning towards rather than away from God.

I don’t know if Rev. Austriaco’s position has changed. The pieces he’s authored that I’ve read seem internally consistent, but I have not read everything by him.

For example, I do not have access to this: Austriaco, N. (2015) “A Fittingness Argument for the Historicity of the Fall of Homo sapiens,” Nova et Vetera 13: 651-667. I imagine you do have a subscription to Nova et Vetera, however, and thus have read, or will be able to read, that article.

In Christ,
cfauster
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
As a professor of molecular genetics yourself, I would be interested in knowing your reaction to that section of my Espiritu article. Of course, it is “backed up” by the possibility of interspecific interbreeding, which Feser and Kemp have proposed.
Click to expand...
Your scholarly approach is apparent even when discussing subjects outside the core of your own professional focus.

Thus, you correctly trace the history, at least to about 2007, of research on the DRB1 alleles. A good recent article on that is:
jphysiolanthropol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1880-6805-33-14
The researchers’ interest is primarily medical, given the importance of those genes in defense against infectious pathogens, and also their role in tolerance or rejection of organ transplants.

I think Ayala chose to discuss MHC alleles for various reasons. Perhaps, given that much of molecular genetics can be technically difficult for non-geneticists to understand, he selected a relatively simple story. But even the simplest stories in science have some complexity! As you note in your own articles, Ayala’s original estimate of around 32 surviving DRB1 allelic lineages already existing at the time of chimpanzee-human divergence now appear too high, with more recent estimates being around 7 (see Figure 2 of the article I cite in this post). Nonetheless, as you note in your articles, our best estimates still exceed the theoretical maximum of 4 that one couple could possess. Hence, I very much appreciate your allowance for additional biological ancestors, even if that is based in your view on relatively tentative data.

Where our views might diverge appears to involve primarily other genetic evidence, beyond the DRB1 story. I appreciate your allowance for the possibility of additional ancestors because in my opinion a scenario without them has an exceedingly low probability of being true. But this forum probably is not the place to go into scientific details.

In His peace,
cfauster
 
Hi CFauster,

I may be a bit brief, since I just wrote out a detailed reply to your kind posts – and then somehow lost it just as I was about to post it! You know what that feels like, I am sure!

Regarding your post #26, note that the title you cite from Fr. Austriaco for Nova et Vetera ends, speaking of the “fall of the Homo sapiens,” NOT of Adam and Eve. That sounds more like polygenism to me than monogenism! Here is an online article by him that spells out his clearly polygenistic reading of Catholic doctrine: thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

Needless to say, I dispute his reading of the theology and have offered evidence for my position in several of my articles.

As to your later post #28, I concur with you about the complexity of the science – and the need to be aware of other factors than just the DRB1 gene. Still, you will note the caution I offer about the epistemic limitations of scientific retrospective calculations reaching far into the distant past.

Nonetheless, my new article forthcoming in Nova et Vetera explores in far greater detail the philosophical problems potentially entailed in the interbreeding hypothesis. And yet, since we are theologically certain of Adam and Eve’s literal reality, we know that, should science require it, the philosophical and scientific possibility of such interbreeding must be assured.

I have enjoyed dialoguing with you in this forum and will post this now before anything dire should again occur to my efforts.

God bless,
Dennis Bonnette
 
Thanks, and yes, I too have lost text due to technical malfunctions … many times!

In Part IV of the item you cited by Austriaco, he proposes this scenario: “Their children [of a single couple … Austriaco does not specify how many children, but elsewhere he says perhaps as few as two, one of each sex] would have inherited the complete package of pro-language genes, bringing together the genetic advantages of each of their parents, and thus, would have acquired a novel capacity for language. With God’s infusion of the human soul, they would be the first instances of behaviorally modern human infants surrounded by a tribe of closely related anatomically modern relatives who would not have full language capacity. Growing up together in the tribe, these infants would have spontaneously developed a new language that only they could speak and understand …”

You are correct that Austriaco does not refer to this scenario as theological monogenism. I will have to review his other writings to find where he said that it could be as few as two first true (in the theological sense) humans. In any case, you are correct that unlike Muller, Feser, and Kemp, Austriaco seems more comfortable with the possibility of more than two first true (in the theological sense) humans. If you do get a chance to read his 2015 essay, I would be interested in how he approaches the question there. Thanks again.
 
Here is how Austriaco concludes “The Historicity of Adam And Eve (Part IV: A Theological Synthesis)”:

"I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative. First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.

Second, does this account not endorse sibling incest? This problem is not a new one. As St. Thomas recognized, any theological account of a single original couple would have entailed sibling marriage to ensure the survival of the human race. Thus, he acknowledges that only parent-child relationships are excluded by the natural law. Brother-sibling relationships, though excluded today by law, would have been necessary early in the history of our species (see Summa theologiae III.54.4). Now, if there was a first community, then this problem is lessened or even eliminated.

Third, how should we understand the interbreeding that took place between behaviorally modern humans and their archaic hominin contemporaries, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans? Theologically understood, these would be instances of bestiality, which still occurs today. However, because of the similarities in appearance and behavior among these closely-related hominin species, it is likely that it would have occurred more frequently in the past than it does today. The genetic similarity would have also made these matings fruitful in a way not possible today."
 
Even though I have an article set for publication in Nova et Vetera, unfortunately I do not have a subscription to the journal myself! The title for my forthcoming piece is “The Impenetrable Mystery of a Literal Adam and Eve.” Why it is “impenetrable” will have to await reading the actual publication!

If you can find a copy of my Origin of the Human Species – Third Edition (Sapientia Press, 2014), you will find analyses of many other aspects of the fascinating topic of human origins. As I have said elsewhere, solving the riddle of man’s beginning is like trying to solve an algebraic equation with three unknowns. In this case, it is a matter of getting credible accounts of the theological, philosophical, and scientific aspects to correlate correctly simultaneously. It may be easy to “solve for” one or two of these issues, but to get all three in sync at once is the real challenge.

Best wishes…
 
cfauster said:
Here is how Austriaco concludes “The Historicity of Adam And Eve (Part IV: A Theological Synthesis)”:

"I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative. First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.

Second, does this account not endorse sibling incest? This problem is not a new one. As St. Thomas recognized, any theological account of a single original couple would have entailed sibling marriage to ensure the survival of the human race. Thus, he acknowledges that only parent-child relationships are excluded by the natural law. Brother-sibling relationships, though excluded today by law, would have been necessary early in the history of our species (see Summa theologiae III.54.4). Now, if there was a first community, then this problem is lessened or even eliminated.

Third, how should we understand the interbreeding that took place between behaviorally modern humans and their archaic hominin contemporaries, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans? Theologically understood, these would be instances of bestiality, which still occurs today. However, because of the similarities in appearance and behavior among these closely-related hominin species, it is likely that it would have occurred more frequently in the past than it does today. The genetic similarity would have also made these matings fruitful in a way not possible today."
Click to expand...
The first paragraph only serves to demonstrate that Austriaco is accepting polygenism.

I fully concur with the explanation of the second paragraph.

As to the third, I may propose a solution which I have published elsewhere. One must realize that, philosophically speaking, Denisovans and Neanderthals were in fact true human beings. Paleoanthropology offers evidence of intellectual activity on the part of both, and hence, that they were true human beings, since man is a rational animal and every rational animal is a true man. That granted (and it can be philosophically demonstrated in the science of philosophical psychology), sexual union between the descendants of Adam and Denisovans and/or Neanderthals is not interbreeding, but simple intrabreeding – normal relations between members of the same natural species.

Yes, that implies that Adam lived before the split between modern human beings and Neanderthals, some six hundred thousand years ago. I deal with these matters in my book, Origin of the Human Species
 
Thank you, Dr. Bonnette.

I appreciate the wisdom of the Catechism where, for example - I think it’s CCC 390 - the Genesis 3 account of the Fall is described as a story about a real, historical event told with figurative language. The Introduction to Genesis accompanying the NABRE Bible available from the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops refers to the early chapters of Genesis as having a genre different from both myth and history; like the Catechism, it emphasizes that the narrative conveys real, important truths in a manner different from modern factual science and history genres. According to the Catechism and the USCCB, sometimes the divinely-inspired narrative details in the early chapters of Genesis have multiple meanings, including the prefiguring of later realities. For example, the Catechism refers to Noah’s ark and the Flood as prefiguring the Church, Christ’s body, and baptism.

I also appreciate the unity and diversity of the Catholic Church as to which details in the early Genesis narratives should be interpreted literally, and which figuratively. An example of unity seems, to me as an outsider at least, to be the consistent emphasis on Original Sin in the way St. Augustine understood it. Catholics often distinguish Adam as the sole first human and place great emphasis on Eve being formed from Adam. (So do some Protestants, of course.) I noticed that even Rev. Austriaco seems to consider temptation as integral to Original Sin, despite his flexibility as to whether the temptation to sin was conveyed by just one other human (Eve) or collectively by a few family members.

I appreciate the patience of the Catholic Church in the face of mystery that I see in your work, Dr. Bonnette, and in the works of many other Catholic scholars. The title itself of your forthcoming work “The Impenetrable Mystery of a Literal Adam and Eve” is marvelous. So is your accurate acknowledgement that we do not have certainty about some details, and that our scientific understandings will change over time.

Most of all, I appreciate that the Catholic Church has remained together over the centuries. Some Protestants have a habit of not tolerating much diversity, leading to schisms. I’m thankful that the Lutheran body to which I belong recently enhanced our ecumenical connections with the Catholic Church.

When I have a genetics student struggling with questions about integrating science and faith, what is she or he looking for? Pat “answers,” such as those available from Answers in Genesis? Well, I’m glad to say, most of my students place more trust in genuine acknowledgement of the limitations of our knowledge. They are relieved to know that others have faced similar struggles and have managed to hold on to the essential truths without demanding the impossible such as certain answers to every question, or that everyone agree on every detail.

So again, thanks, and God bless.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
One must realize that, philosophically speaking, Denisovans and Neanderthals were in fact true human beings. Paleoanthropology offers evidence of intellectual activity on the part of both, and hence, that they were true human beings, since man is a rational animal and every rational animal is a true man. … Yes, that implies that Adam lived before the split between modern human beings and Neanderthals, some six hundred thousand years ago. I deal with these matters in my book, Origin of the Human Species
Click to expand...
If most current estimates are correct, Homo erectus originated in Africa about 1.9 million years ago. As you note, the H. erectus lineages leading to Denisovans and Neanderthals apparently diverged around 600 thousand years ago from the other H. erectus lineages that would - much later - lead to anatomically modern humans.

I tend to agree that true human beings, philosophically and theologically if not necessarily in all ways behaviorally, probably included archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Denisovans and others, as well as anatomically (morphologically) modern humans, Homo sapiens.

If so, then indeed matings between Neanderthals or Denisovans and Homo sapiens would not be examples of bestiality.
 
I guess the contrast between answers to the question “What does it take to be a true human?” sometimes hinges on how essential symbolic language is judged to be.

Rev. Austriaco apparently thinks symbolic language is very important, such that only once the capacity for it emerged would necessary faculties exist in a body God could infuse with a human soul.

But as Dr. Bonnette notes, there are other signs of rational intellect one can choose as sufficient for accommodating a human soul.

I think this article should be open access (not requiring a subscription).

P.S. - And, I would hesitate to insist that any rational intellect is necessarily required for human personhood. For example, what about infants, developmentally disabled, etc.? Rev. Austriaco is a leader in the defense of the rights of the unborn, I should note, so I’m sure his emphasis on associating language ability with humanness, in the origins of our species, is not intended to diminish the status of human infants, etc.
 
cfauster said:
I guess the contrast between answers to the question “What does it take to be a true human?” sometimes hinges on how essential symbolic language is judged to be.

Rev. Austriaco apparently thinks symbolic language is very important, such that only once the capacity for it emerged would necessary faculties exist in a body God could infuse with a human soul.

But as Dr. Bonnette notes, there are other signs of rational intellect one can choose as sufficient for accommodating a human soul.

I think this article should be open access (not requiring a subscription).

P.S. - And, I would hesitate to insist that any rational intellect is necessarily required for human personhood. For example, what about infants, developmentally disabled, etc.? Rev. Austriaco is a leader in the defense of the rights of the unborn, I should note, so I’m sure his emphasis on associating language ability with humanness, in the origins of our species, is not intended to diminish the status of human infants, etc.
Click to expand...
What I would point out here is well know to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophers.

The concern about symbolic language is based on the A-T argument for the spirituality of the human soul. Without trying to give the whole argument, essentially it entails showing that the human intellect forms universal concepts from the content of sense experience. These concepts are spiritual in nature, thereby revealing the spiritual nature of the human soul or substantial form. We give names to these concepts and use such arbitrary symbols to form human language. Hence, working backward, from the finding of genuine language in our ancestors, we infer the spiritual nature of their souls. As I have indicated elsewhere, other signs of intellective activity, such as the making of artistic stone hand axes, may also reveal the spiritual nature of our early relatives.

The distinction between potency and act is needed to understand why babies, those in comas, or developmentally disabled persons, may fail to exhibit linguistic powers. The human spiritual soul is present from conception to death, but intellective acts come and go. We possess the power or potency to act throughout life, but these potencies are not always in act. The act proves the potency, but the fact that we are not always in act does not prove the absence of the potency. That is why when we fall asleep we do not cease to be human. The underlying nature of the person remains present, but full human activity is intermittent. That fact explains why the unborn baby is fully human, although not yet able to fully manifest the human spiritual nature which he possesses.
 
Thank you, Dr. Bonnette!

Very clearly explained, and very helpful to me.

I would guess that A-T philosophy is integral to many scholars, including perhaps you, Kemp, Austriaco, Feser, etc. I think the last two have web site titles that explicitly refer to Thomistic thought, and I’m sure many more scholars emphasize it just as much in their work.

Would I be correct in thinking that Rev. Austriaco might rely more on the actual capacity for symbolic language itself to indicate capacity for possessing a spiritual soul, whereas you might look to a broader range of possible indicators of physical capacity for cognitive thought needed to accompany the spiritual soul? And, maybe symbolic thought is more important to Austriaco, whereas symbolic thought per se is less the issue for you?

Tattersall writes: “Complicating the difficult matter of cognition among extinct hominids is wild variation in scientists’ interpretation of putative proxies for language and symbolic thought … This vast range of opinion exists, of course, because language is an intangible that fails to preserve directly and is not closely correlated with anything that does. Similarly, symbolic thought is barely easier to approach in material terms, because we are obliged to make indirect inferences about anything except for explicitly technological behaviors…The Neanderthals were wonderful craftsmen in stone, and left us an incomparable record of very complex lives … But they bequeathed us no convincing evidence of any consistent tradition of symbolic activity…if the Neanderthals had routinely been symbolic thinkers it seems reasonable to suppose that they would have left more convincing indications of it.”

If you have time, I’d be interested to know if you see your view as different from Tattersall’s because you:
  • differ from him in how you evaluate archeological evidence for symbolic thought
    or
  • regard rational intellect lacking symbolic thought as still sufficient evidence of the spiritual soul?
Regardless, I tend to agree with you that Neanderthals were true humans.

Thanks again, and God bless.
 
cfauster said:
Thank you, Dr. Bonnette!

Very clearly explained, and very helpful to me.

I would guess that A-T philosophy is integral to many scholars, including perhaps you, Kemp, Austriaco, Feser, etc. I think the last two have web site titles that explicitly refer to Thomistic thought, and I’m sure many more scholars emphasize it just as much in their work.

Would I be correct in thinking that Rev. Austriaco might rely more on the actual capacity for symbolic language itself to indicate capacity for possessing a spiritual soul, whereas you might look to a broader range of possible indicators of physical capacity for cognitive thought needed to accompany the spiritual soul? And, maybe symbolic thought is more important to Austriaco, whereas symbolic thought per se is less the issue for you?

Tattersall writes: “Complicating the difficult matter of cognition among extinct hominids is wild variation in scientists’ interpretation of putative proxies for language and symbolic thought … This vast range of opinion exists, of course, because language is an intangible that fails to preserve directly and is not closely correlated with anything that does. Similarly, symbolic thought is barely easier to approach in material terms, because we are obliged to make indirect inferences about anything except for explicitly technological behaviors…The Neanderthals were wonderful craftsmen in stone, and left us an incomparable record of very complex lives … But they bequeathed us no convincing evidence of any consistent tradition of symbolic activity…if the Neanderthals had routinely been symbolic thinkers it seems reasonable to suppose that they would have left more convincing indications of it.”

If you have time, I’d be interested to know if you see your view as different from Tattersall’s because you:
  • differ from him in how you evaluate archeological evidence for symbolic thought
    or
  • regard rational intellect lacking symbolic thought as still sufficient evidence of the spiritual soul?
Regardless, I tend to agree with you that Neanderthals were true humans.

Thanks again, and God bless.
Click to expand...
I am not sufficiently certain of the philosophical presuppositions of either Fr. Austriaco or Dr. Tattersall to want to categorize their exact positions. Fr. Austriaco is a good Dominican priest and I am confident that he shares with me the philosophical worldview with his illustrious Dominican mentor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Dr. Tattersall may be in a bit different category. I know that he is a paleoanthropologist and evolutionist, frequently described as an agnostic. While he holds sophisticated positions about the origin and character of human language, I am not at all confident that he would accept my claims about language as evincing a spiritual soul in man.

I would rather speak of the typical paleoanthropologist, most of whom would hold the position of materialistic biological evolution. As such, they tend to be reductionist philosophically, that is, they would reduce all hominin activity to the functions of purely material organs. While they may even speak of human language as being qualitatively different from any behavior of lower animals, their philosophical materialism would remain the ultimate explanation for everything.

If you want to see an analysis of the exact differences between this view and that of A-T philosophers, go to my web site at drbonnette.com. 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,” parts I and II. Chapter Five of my book, Origin of the Human Species – Third Edition (Sapientia Press, 2014) is a shorter redaction of this article. In it, 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. This entire area is very complex, which is why many related topics are dealt with in other chapters of my book on human origins.

I appreciate your sincere interest in these matters and hope some of this helps.

God bless
 
Excellent. Thank you so much. I will read the articles!

In His peace,
cfauster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top