Original Selfishness vs. Original Sin

[Bubba_Switzler]

Recently Cardinal Pell described the story of Adam and Eve as a beautiful myth. Much consternation ensued and you can see some of it here.

In researching this subject I came across the work of Professor Daryl P. Domning who has writtin an article for America (the Jesuit publication), a monograph, and a book:

“Evolution, Evil and Original Sin”

“Evolution and original sin: accounting for evil in the world”

Original Selfishness: Original Sin And Evil in the Light of Evolution

What I am interested in exploring here is not the debate between evolution and creationism nor the debate about the reality vs. myth of Adam and Eve.

The topic of this thread is simply the theological implications of Domning’s concept of “original selfishness” vs. the orthodox doctrine of original sin. Needless to say, we all know how original sin fits into Catholic dogma but Domning opens up a whole can of worms.

For example, the orthodox explanation of original sin is based on the sin of Adam and Eve. By contrast, Domning posits that selfishness is inherent to biology. Both account for the sinfulness of man but under Domning’s original selfishness there was never a Garden of Eden from which man fell.

 

[JNdoum]

Perhaps original sin was an outgrowth of original selfishness: Adam decided he was more important than God’s will, and so he decided that he could disregard it and taste of the forbidden fruit.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Recently Cardinal Pell described the story of Adam and Eve as a beautiful myth. …
For example, the orthodox explanation of original sin is based on the sin of Adam and Eve. By contrast, Domning posits that selfishness is inherent to biology. Both account for the sinfulness of man but under Domning’s original selfishness there was never a Garden of Eden from which man fell.

You are going to have a hard time unless a bunch of terms get closely defined. First, Cardinal Ratzinger said years ago that the first 13 chapters of Genesis were “mythological in nature.” So, first we have to know that “myth” doesn’t mean “fantasy.” Mythology is always based in fact or it would be called something else.

The Catechism calls the story of Adam and Eve “figurative language” that portrays a primeval event, iirc.

But none of that is necessary to having a discussion on the differences between the physical or spiritual nature of humans. So, if we want to posit that physical biology played a part in the Fall, then we have to accept that the Garden was located on earth in Time and Adam and Eve were Homo sapiens.

So where’s the mythological part or the figurative language?

Then you have to define “selfish.” Does that include survival instinct or just eating all the food yourself and not sharing?

 

[Dorothy]

Our first parents had a fall from grace. They had been full of sanctifying grace. They no longer had friendship with God, due to their disobedience. And, then we were promised a Saviour.

I understand the snake/serpent represents Satan, the angel that fell from grace and was allowed to tempt.

I understand that speculation among theologians is allowed, but the Church is the authority of how the doctrines are explained.

The Church has been battling error since its beginnings.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You are going to have a hard time unless a bunch of terms get closely defined. First, Cardinal Ratzinger said years ago that the first 13 chapters of Genesis were “mythological in nature.” So, first we have to know that “myth” doesn’t mean “fantasy.” Mythology is always based in fact or it would be called something else.

The Catechism calls the story of Adam and Eve “figurative language” that portrays a primeval event, iirc.

I think the question in the previous thread I referenced (and I would recommend you posting the above comments with attribution there) is how figurative the stories are. Are they so figurative that Adam and Eve are not to be regarded as real persons? Was the Garden of Eden not real? Were they not living in a world of bliss free of death, disease, and violence?

But none of that is necessary to having a discussion on the differences between the physical or spiritual nature of humans. So, if we want to posit that physical biology played a part in the Fall, then we have to accept that the Garden was located on earth in Time and Adam and Eve were Homo sapiens.

So where’s the mythological part or the figurative language?

Then you have to define “selfish.” Does that include survival instinct or just eating all the food yourself and not sharing?

I recommend that you at least read the first article from America that I linked in the OP. That will answer some of your questions and lead to better ones, I think.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Perhaps original sin was an outgrowth of original selfishness: Adam decided he was more important than God’s will, and so he decided that he could disregard it and taste of the forbidden fruit.

Perhaps. Does that upset Catholic theology in any way?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I recommend that you at least read the first article from America that I linked in the OP. That will answer some of your questions and lead to better ones, I think.

Bubba, I’m asking you. It’s your thread, your 2nd attempt. You obviously have a point of view, how about sharing that?

BTW, I have read the articles. If we start referencing the articles, your 2nd thread will also disappear.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba, I’m asking you. It’s your thread, your 2nd attempt. You obviously have a point of view, how about sharing that?

I have not read the book yet. I read the first article and am in the middle of reading the monograph. I am so far impressed with his argument. But, as I noted, my interest is in the theological implications of Professor Domning’s argument. Aside from the obvious fact that it contradicts the commonly held view that Adam and Eve were literal persons, it probably has other implications as well.

You are certainly welcome to direct the discussion in a direction that interests you but your first post seemed more relevant to the thread that I referenced, not the subject here.

BTW, I have read the articles. If we start referencing the articles, your 2nd thread will also disappear.

Well, I don’t pretend to know all the reasons that will cause threads to disappear.

 

[JNdoum]

Perhaps. Does that upset Catholic theology in any way?

I do not believe that it does. I have heard numerous apologists explain Adams sin in just this way, without direct reference to original selfishness. I think, however, that whether or not Adam and Eve were real persons is irrelevant. I personally believe they were, but they could just as easily have not been. The Bible wasn’t intended as a scientific treatise or anything, but the means of imparting the faith to it’s readers. Even if Adam and Eve aren’t real, the story explains to perfection the origin of our sin: rejection of God’s will and following our own.

 

[Dorothy]

In the Encyclical “Humani Generis” it states that Adam and Eve were real persons.

The God-given authority of our teaching Church defines and puts forth for us what we need to believe, for our own good. It helps us to avoid going off into areas that can lead us astray.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am almost done with the monograph and it is mostly a more detailed version of the America article. (I’m guessing that the book will be a still more detailed treatment.)

I will begin to hazard some preliminary thoughts:

Although Domning does not directly say this, it is strongly implied that God created a world of death and violence and he saw that it was good.

This might seem at first to be somewhat blasphemous, but there is support for this notion in the New Testament when Jesus declares that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

What Domning seems to be implying is that the Darwinian world is not evil in the gnostic sense, it is necessary and good, but rather that Christ calls us to go beyond it when, for example, he tells us to love our neighbors and our enemies. It is also implied in the necessity of suffering and the futility of creating utopias on earth.

In other words, the Darwinian world is good, Christ calls us to be better.

 

[Gaber]

Recently Cardinal Pell described the story of Adam and Eve as a beautiful myth. Much consternation ensued and you can see some of it here.

In researching this subject I came across the work of Professor Daryl P. Domning who has writtin an article for America (the Jesuit publication), a monograph, and a book:

What I am interested in exploring here is *not* the debate between evolution and creationism *nor* the debate about the reality vs. myth of Adam and Eve.

The topic of this thread is simply the theological implications of Domning's concept of "original selfishness" vs. the orthodox doctrine of original sin. Needless to say, we all know how original sin fits into Catholic dogma but Domning opens up a whole can of worms.

For example, the orthodox explanation of original sin is based on the sin of Adam and Eve. By contrast, Domning posits that selfishness is inherent to biology. Both account for the sinfulness of man but under Domning's original selfishness there was never a Garden of Eden from which man fell.

Hrd to deal wit this without refering to the bait of debate, but I think he is on the right track if it’s modified a bit. That is to say that he hasn’t yet gone far enough.

It kind of hinges on what “selfishness” might mean. If it means the ascent from instinct to subject/objec awareness, or the fabled “knowledge of good and evil” which simply means division, it maigh lead somewhere. So the “fall” might be loosley analogous to reaching the age of “reason” where the individual can percieve themselves as a person distiinct from the world, as it appears. But the ability to make that distinction is at the cost of losing the sense of connectivity had by instinct. But “salvation” can be had by the transcendence of the subject/object trap of sense involvement when “grace” descends and one can see beyond the divisive mechinatons of the mind and expereince again the undevided wholeness while retaining their cogniton of the body as a seemingly descreet entity and locus of awareness, while knowing otherwise.

When he gets to the point of being able to explicate that dynamic from expereince, he willhave made a great leap and will be very worth persuing farther.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hrd to deal wit this without refering to the bait of debate, but I think he is on the right track if it’s modified a bit. That is to say that he hasn’t yet gone far enough.

It kind of hinges on what “selfishness” might mean. If it means the ascent from instinct to subject/objec awareness, or the fabled “knowledge of good and evil” which simply means division, it maigh lead somewhere. So the “fall” might be loosley analogous to reaching the age of “reason” where the individual can percieve themselves as a person distiinct from the world, as it appears. But the ability to make that distinction is at the cost of losing the sense of connectivity had by instinct. But “salvation” can be had by the transcendence of the subject/object trap of sense involvement when “grace” descends and one can see beyond the divisive mechinatons of the mind and expereince again the undevided wholeness while retaining their cogniton of the body as a seemingly descreet entity and locus of awareness, while knowing otherwise.

When he gets to the point of being able to explicate that dynamic from expereince, he willhave made a great leap and will be very worth persuing farther.

I think you have make some good points here but now that I have finished his monograph I’d like to add another part of the argument that may clarify much of the above, at least with respect to what is selfishness, reason, and transcendence.

Selfishness is rooted in our animalistic heritage and it is, loosly speaking, that strategy which is maximally competitive, as opposed to self indulgence.,It is that which maximizes our own offspring and minimized the offspring of others. Reason that distinguished us from other animals is certainly important and relevant but mostly it is put in the service of selfishness so defined.

But an essential part of his argument is that mankind was already developing socially as demonstrated by the overlap between, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, and Confucionism not to mention social development, law, military organization, etc. Setting aside some peculiarities of Judaism that relate to Christ, all of these may be said to exhibit worldly wisdom. We will set aside our own selfishness for the group so long as the group, at least probabilistically, is good for us. We serve in an army that is defending our home, for example.

So we transcended our animal heritage without God’s revelation. But there is a plateau there beyond which humanity is unable to progress further by relying on selfishness and reason alone.

Christ was always part of God’s plan and Christ’s message is that we must transcend even our best reasoned worldly wisdom. The Old Testamant, while containing much worldly wisdom also functioned to prepare the Israelits for Christ by, among other things, weening them away from paganism toward God.

The mistake that many Jews made was to cling to their worldly view of the Messiah as delivering them from the Romans and missing out on the bigger picture.

Domning is much less specific about the nature and role of grace. I think he means that Christ was more than a good example but he really doesn’t elaborate. And, in any case, he has discovered something important already and it’s probably up to more serious theoligians (Domning is primarily a scientist) to follow this through and see where it leads.

 

[fhansen]

Recently Cardinal Pell described the story of Adam and Eve as a beautiful myth. Much consternation ensued and you can see some of it here.

In researching this subject I came across the work of Professor Daryl P. Domning who has writtin an article for America (the Jesuit publication), a monograph, and a book:

“Evolution, Evil and Original Sin”

“Evolution and original sin: accounting for evil in the world”

Original Selfishness: Original Sin And Evil in the Light of Evolution

What I am interested in exploring here is not the debate between evolution and creationism nor the debate about the reality vs. myth of Adam and Eve.

The topic of this thread is simply the theological implications of Domning’s concept of “original selfishness” vs. the orthodox doctrine of original sin. Needless to say, we all know how original sin fits into Catholic dogma but Domning opens up a whole can of worms.

For example, the orthodox explanation of original sin is based on the sin of Adam and Eve. By contrast, Domning posits that selfishness is inherent to biology. Both account for the sinfulness of man but under Domning’s original selfishness there was never a Garden of Eden from which man fell.

The concept of OS is different in that, while selfishness, the opposite of selflessness, was involved, the consequences for man were not at all beneficial. Sin is an *unnatural *act, and so it could be said that the natural consequence of sin was death, spiritually as well as, according to the doctrine, physical death.

I think the main point though is that the way we see selfishness played out in this world, through sin or moral evil, is far more vicious and terrible in many cases than one would suppose a simple ‘dog eat dog’ morality would manifest itself for the purposes of mere survival. Man’s inhumanity to man seems to know no limits.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Sin is an *unnatural *act, and so it could be said that the natural consequence of sin was death, spiritually as well as, according to the doctrine, physical death.

This is a key point worth further discussion. What Domning is arguing is quite the contary, that sin is very natural. Although natural law suggests otherwise, there is considerable support for Domning’s view on this in Catholic theology. Certainly after the fall, if not before, sin is in our nature. Domning spends much time on the very Catholic concept of concupiscence against which grace is directed.

 

[fhansen]

This is a key point worth further discussion. What Domning is arguing is quite the contary, that sin is very natural. Although natural law suggests otherwise, there is considerable support for Domning’s view on this in Catholic theology. Certainly after the fall, if not before, sin is in our nature. Domning spends much time on the very Catholic concept of concupiscence against which grace is directed.

Prior to the Fall man was graced and I think it would be consistent with Catholic theology to say that grace was exactly what was rejected when God’s authority was spurned. Because by that act of disobedience, His very godhood was rejected so that, for all practical purposes, God was no longer the god of man; man was his own god. So the New Covenant is all about the restoration of grace/reconciliation of man with God. And that relationship is what is said to be the vital missing part in man’s ability to overcome or resist concupiscence.

 

[fhansen]

If sin is natural, then all evil acts, acts that go way beyond those the most vicious animal would have any need to do, acts that are so intrinsically sick and wrong by their nature and by the fact that they’re done deliberately and maliciously for no other reason than to cause the most harm and pain and humiliation, all acts of rape, genocide, child torture, etc, are natural for man.

But the doctrine of original sin postulates that there’s something else going on, that much of the way man behaves is wrong, in small ways and large, that this behavior simply passes beyond what should be reasonably expected, that it should not be.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If sin is natural, then all evil acts, acts that go way beyond those the most vicious animal would have any need to do, acts that are so intrinsically sick and wrong by their nature and by the fact that they’re done deliberately and maliciously for no other reason than to cause the most harm and pain and humiliation, all acts of rape, genocide, child torture, etc, are natural for man.

But the doctrine of original sin postulates that there’s something else going on, that much of the way man behaves is wrong, in small ways and large, that this behavior simply passes beyond what should be reasonably expected, that it should not be.

I understand what you are saying here but let me offer an alternative view based on the Catholic concept of concupiscence cited above.

By virtue of evolution, we have a natural appetite. Some aspects of that appetite are good and some are evil. While it is certainly possible to sin against nature (e.g. suicide or torture for pleasure), that are so depraved that they fail even to serve a selfish purpose. But this is not the main challenge that humanity faces.

Genocide, for example, is very natural and what better way is there for making sure that your enemy is removed from existence. Conversely, rape is a great way to spread your seed (and have fun while doing it). Darwin loves genocide and rape! Torture for the purpose of intimidating enemies is similarly quite useful. That’s some pretty bad stuff, there.

And because these were advantageous for so long they are deep within our nature. We are all descendants of genocidal rapists!

Of course, it’s not all bad news. The love a mother for her child, the love of a soldier for his companions, the love of beauty and truth, these are all good natural appetites.

 

[fhansen]

But an alternative way to see it is that, if it’s a natural appetite then by definition it would always be good. Rape also spreads STDs so it can be argued that nature/evolution shouldn’t favor it. And I doubt too many Einsteins are going around raping so who’s to say what benefit mankind may procure genetically by the most prolific rapists doing the raping-maybe more lunk-headed rapists?

It’s asserted that all sin is done for the sake of obtaining a good desired by the sinner, a lesser good to be sure than the alternative, but, for example, the torturer may derive pleasure from the feeling of power and control he experiences by his act.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But an alternative way to see it is that, if it’s a natural appetite then by definition it would always be good. Rape also spreads STDs so it can be argued that nature/evolution shouldn’t favor it. And I doubt too many Einsteins are going around raping so who’s to say what benefit mankind may procure genetically by the most prolific rapists doing the raping-maybe more lunk-headed rapists?

There are those who will argue that natural equals good but that is not the Catholic argument. (Thomas did not argue natural law on this basis but on the basis of purpose, teleological, not empirical nature.) Why should we see natural as good?

And, yes, there have been those who have tried to construct moral systems based on what is good. Generally speaking, that is classical ethics, the ethics of Aristotle et alia.

And, yes, there are obvious risks with genocide and rape but the fact is that they have long been advantageous behaviors but it is only relatively recent that social conventions have turned against these behaviors, certainly not recentlhy enough to influence our human nature. That is why the Nazi holocaust and other recent examples still plague humanity.

It’s asserted that all sin is done for the sake of obtaining a good desired by the sinner, a lesser good to be sure than the alternative, but, for example, the torturer may derive pleasure from the feeling of power and control he experiences by his act.

Right, but keep in mind that we’re not trying to justify every sinful choice, merely to identify sinful tendencies. So, for example, the pleasure of sex is a natural device for facilitating the spread of genes but homosexuality and autoertoic acts are still pleasurable. We might say that in general, power similarly has good feelings that might find expression in counterproductive ways. So we should not be surprised at the imprecision of natural desires. Darwin is not perfect.

Where I agree with you is that Christian society has, in many ways, made good behavior a more rational choice. Still, there is that natural appetite there. It is all too easy for societies to slip back toward barbarity.