Original Sin

[fhansen]

I appreciate that you have quoted a commandment in support of this, but I have never understood how this can be justified in more universal terms as a problem. It might be dealt with better in a separate thread, but why is it a moral act to have anything to do with this god let alone worship it, no matter what it may have done? Actually what is wrong with being born in that state you describe, of no faith and no engagement with any supernatural being? What is the ethical argument that supports the scriptural demands?Stuart

To put it perhaps more generically, the idea is that man is out of sync with nature, itself, and with his own nature, such that he’s not incapable of doing things-committing “sins”- that he otherwise would not. So that, unless man looks at himself to explain the problems and general unhappiness he witnesses in his personal life and the world around him, he’ll never have a solution for evil. When we set our sights higher, recognizing a purpose within our universe and an intentional general goodness to its existence and behind it design, we have something to hope in and focus on as a model for order within ourselves. It gives humans a basic “grounded” platform from which to proceed with their lives-with their “pursuit of happiness”, if you will.

I don’t imagine you would deny that some of the most enthusiastic adopters of this state have committed atrocities, and that there are hundreds of millions who are not in this state who do not commit any crimes against humanity, and who would also claim to be happy.

The state isn’t adopted unless and until one genuinely, fully, comes to love God and neighbor. This is the goal, one which is considered to be a* process* in Catholic thought. Anything less than this is incomplete at best or a feigned faith-“religiosity”-at worst.

 

[davidv]

Do you see a relationship between agape and human happiness as would be perceived universally?

Since perception often distorts reality, I don’t how this is relevant.

I guess technically the evidence says that doesn’t happen. Rather our atoms are recycled, reorganised and reused as has been happening thoughout life anyway. But of course the materialist is going to respond with the converse question: what evidence is there that any kind of life exists past the one we know we have?

Where is the evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. God’s revelation of the afterlife is available to all.

Would it not be reasonable for a deist to find that a bizarre statement to make?

I don’t know.

I’m sure we could agree with the sentiment regarding neighbours, we are a social species. However you are kind of claiming that there is something special about this apparently compulsory love which imbues happiness with some kind of honesty that is missing in what others would call their happiness. What evidence would you offer for that deist?

Stuart

Since true love cannot be compulsary, I fail see your point. Beside this seems to way off topic.

 

[holmj2674]

Stuu,
You know, almost all of my friends are atheists or agnostic. I know nothing we are going to say here is going to change your mind because you have bought the great lie. You have been taught your whole life to see the laws governing the physical universe, known to us as science, an extremely beneficial branch of study that has brought great good and also some great evil to us humans. But science is the study of what is observable and recordable… and what we are talking about here is not science. What you miss is the metaphysical underpinnings of the material universe, the Sophia perennis. We have all been given a 6th sense by our creator… along with smell, taste, touch, sight etc. is intellect. Our ancestors understood the intuitive relationship between intellect and metaphysical reality and developed philosophies that reflected this fundamental truth. The church fathers understood that these philosophies, pagan in origin, nevertheless contained metaphysical truths that were adopted into the Christian vocabulary and used to formulate ideas such as the trinity (hypostasis etc.)
Humanist philosophy developed over the last several centuries is a poor and misguided substitute as science come to the fore front of western thought. So what we are looking at here in the Bible is a book of metaphysical truths, passed to us in the form of direct revelation, allegory, mythology and fable. It is not all true in the literal, historic nor scientific sense, but it is true on the metaphysical level that cannot be quantified by observation by any sense but our intellect.
The intellect is not the same as intelligence, it is a faculty that the modern world rarely calls into use anymore, and is therefore anemic and malnourished to a dangerous degree. Rather than approaching Christianity as a religion what I suggest you do is break out Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Phathagoras first. There you will see the first metaphysical glimmers of mans journey to God… a philosophical journey that meets Christianity at the T-intersection of antiquity and turns together into truth.

 

[fhansen]

Would it not be reasonable for a deist to find that a bizarre statement to make? I’m sure we could agree with the sentiment regarding neighbours, we are a social species. However you are kind of claiming that there is something special about this apparently compulsory love which imbues happiness with some kind of honesty that is missing in what others would call their happiness. What evidence would you offer for that deist?
Stuart

Anyone can challenge any of us to consider that our happiness might be incomplete-or that misery and suffering are inescapable aspects of human life. None of us have the right to mandate that others think this way or recognize any of this, however. But love is only “compulsory”, to a believer, in the sense that it’s compulsory to eat healthy, exercise, and have a balanced amount of discipline if one desires to live a long and happier life-or to avoid dangerous situations of one wants to avoid pain.

We believe we’ve found something- a treasure-that has revealed itself to be of inestimable value. The idea that love may in some way be foundational to the universe, or that, in any case, it’s the true source of unending happiness can only be a hypothetical for anyone who hasn’t tasted, at least to some degree, the virtue known as agape. We can experience small tastes of it in everyday human love but we’re speaking of something that can exceed this by infinite degrees of power and awesomeness.

 

[Stuu]

Since perception often distorts reality, I don’t how this is relevant.

Thanks for your reply. Well indeed. I think you might be choosing what the philosopher Stephen Law calls a “Nuclear option” where perception itself is called into question. In this case it might mean the empiricist is completely deceived by the physical evidence, but it also might mean that Catholics are worshipping the wrong god, and it could also be that the bible is true, that god sends lies to baffle non-believers. Interesting view of the divine as liar in that idea.

Where is the evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. God’s revelation of the afterlife is available to all.

So in the end does it boil down to worldview? From a Catholic point of view do you commit to the bible, trying to do the best you can walking the fine line between the literal and the allegorical but nevertheless having no choice but to accept everything in some way because it is inspired, or a skeptical worldview in which nothing is believed without physical evidence? This is my point in relation to original sin, as you might have seen above: if the physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of the event on which original sin is based, the story that justifies the assertion of the doctrine, then on what basis is every newborn labeled a sinner?

Since true love cannot be compulsary, I fail see your point. Beside this seems to way off topic.

Indeed it is off-topic, so I shall desist with it here, although I would finish by retorting that if you are going to burn / be eternally destroyed for not loving god then you don’t really have a genuine choice, whether or not the love you proffer is genuine. If as you suggest feigned love won’t work, then Pascal’s wager would seem to be trivial.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu,
You know, almost all of my friends are atheists or agnostic. I know nothing we are going to say here is going to change your mind because you have bought the great lie. You have been taught your whole life to see the laws governing the physical universe, known to us as science, an extremely beneficial branch of study that has brought great good and also some great evil to us humans. But science is the study of what is observable and recordable… and what we are talking about here is not science. What you miss is the metaphysical underpinnings of the material universe, the Sophia perennis. We have all been given a 6th sense by our creator… along with smell, taste, touch, sight etc. is intellect. Our ancestors understood the intuitive relationship between intellect and metaphysical reality and developed philosophies that reflected this fundamental truth. The church fathers understood that these philosophies, pagan in origin, nevertheless contained metaphysical truths that were adopted into the Christian vocabulary and used to formulate ideas such as the trinity (hypostasis etc.)
Humanist philosophy developed over the last several centuries is a poor and misguided substitute as science come to the fore front of western thought. So what we are looking at here in the Bible is a book of metaphysical truths, passed to us in the form of direct revelation, allegory, mythology and fable. It is not all true in the literal, historic nor scientific sense, but it is true on the metaphysical level that cannot be quantified by observation by any sense but our intellect.
The intellect is not the same as intelligence, it is a faculty that the modern world rarely calls into use anymore, and is therefore anemic and malnourished to a dangerous degree. Rather than approaching Christianity as a religion what I suggest you do is break out Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Phathagoras first. There you will see the first metaphysical glimmers of mans journey to God… a philosophical journey that meets Christianity at the T-intersection of antiquity and turns together into truth.

Nicely put, and passionately articulated. I think the logical problem might be that you say I have bought into a way of thinking that means we should believe that which we can measure through the senses and record, you are then claiming that there is a wider truth that is missed by this process but can be discovered by some process of…measuring and recording through the senses. So, you sort of justify this by adding a sixth sense, which may I say is not documented by science, but where there is a second problem theologically. How is it that, clearly, some humans don’t have this supposed sixth sense? In regards to original sin, where people will be eternally destroyed if they cannot grasp the significance, then where is the justice? Are people without use of this sense just supposed to accept the word of those with it? Are their “god-given” capacities for critical thinking, which has given us all the good technologies that rescued us from Medieval miseries (and the internet, so this website can spread Catholic thinking) not also being used in the same mode to question what humans have written on paper about god? By what mechanism is this writing of scripture inspired? Is the skeptic to go against all the science that has worked so spectacularly well for good, and as you say evil too, in all other areas of all our lives, by rejecting that way of seeing the world specifically for the claim that there is much more going on that a majority of the world can’t see? Is there not equal justification for pointing the word “lie” at anyone, theist or atheist? Meantime there are philosophers and neuroscientists who are just beginning to demonstrate why humans would think there is such a dimension to reality, even when there is a paradox created by claiming knowledge of things that are also called unknowable.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Anyone can challenge any of us to consider that our happiness might be incomplete-or that misery and suffering are inescapable aspects of human life. None of us have the right to mandate that others think this way or recognize any of this, however. But love is only “compulsory”, to a believer, in the sense that it’s compulsory to eat healthy, exercise, and have a balanced amount of discipline if one desires to live a long and happier life-or to avoid dangerous situations of one wants to avoid pain.

We believe we’ve found something- a treasure-that has revealed itself to be of inestimable value. The idea that love may in some way be foundational to the universe, or that, in any case, it’s the true source of unending happiness can only be a hypothetical for anyone who hasn’t tasted, at least to some degree, the virtue known as agape. We can experience small tastes of it in everyday human love but we’re speaking of something that can exceed this by infinite degrees of power and awesomeness.

So it is the one true happiness that denies anyone without it can be truly happy? Would an advocate of such not have to have tasted all the different sources of happiness before concluding this was the best? What of Einstein, who must have derived great happiness from the concept of Spinoza’s god in relation to the beauty of the laws by which the universe works, a position that he was able to justify without recourse to metaphysical descriptions of the supernatural?

Stuart

 

[davidv]

Nicely put, and passionately articulated. I think the logical problem might be that you say I have bought into a way of thinking that means we should believe that which we can measure through the senses and record, you are then claiming that there is a wider truth that is missed by this process but can be discovered by some process of…measuring and recording through the senses. So, you sort of justify this by adding a sixth sense, which may I say is not documented by science, but where there is a second problem theologically. How is it that, clearly, some humans don’t have this supposed sixth sense? In regards to original sin, where people will be eternally destroyed if they cannot grasp the significance, then where is the justice? Are people without use of this sense just supposed to accept the word of those with it? Are their “god-given” capacities for critical thinking, which has given us all the good technologies that rescued us from Medieval miseries (and the internet, so this website can spread Catholic thinking) not also being used in the same mode to question what humans have written on paper about god? By what mechanism is this writing of scripture inspired? Is the skeptic to go against all the science that has worked so spectacularly well for good, and as you say evil too, in all other areas of all our lives, by rejecting that way of seeing the world specifically for the claim that there is much more going on that a majority of the world can’t see? Is there not equal justification for pointing the word “lie” at anyone, theist or atheist? Meantime there are philosophers and neuroscientists who are just beginning to demonstrate why humans would think there is such a dimension to reality, even when there is a paradox created by claiming knowledge of things that are also called unknowable.

Stuart

Every human being has an intellect (“sixth sense”) no matter how feeble. If ones intellect is so impared as to not recognize right from wrong, there is no culpability and hell is not a given. It seems you have a distorted understanding of what original sin is. Original sin is the sin of Adam, the first man. It is not a personal sin for the rest of us.

 

[Stuu]

Every human being has an intellect (“sixth sense”) no matter how feeble. If ones intellect is so impared as to not recognize right from wrong, there is no culpability and hell is not a given. It seems you have a distorted understanding of what original sin is. Original sin is the sin of Adam, the first man. It is not a personal sin for the rest of us.

You might recognise this statement, which I copied from Wikipedia:

“By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”)”

I was only suggesting what this says, and it appears to be that there is inheritance of “nature wounded by their own first sin”, although it does not describe what that actually entails. It is, as I suggested, that all newborn children are bad through inheritance.

You appear to be suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong, that this sixth sense is the conscience. In that case I would be wrong that this sense has not been identified by science, indeed much of it has been explained in terms of the way the brain has been molded by genes to cause behaviours that are advantageous to the survival and continuation of the species. Is there more to it than that?

Stuart

 

[holmj2674]

Nicely put, and passionately articulated. I think the logical problem might be that you say I have bought into a way of thinking that means we should believe that which we can measure through the senses and record, you are then claiming that there is a wider truth that is missed by this process but can be discovered by some process of…measuring and recording through the senses. So, you sort of justify this by adding a sixth sense, which may I say is not documented by science, but where there is a second problem theologically. How is it that, clearly, some humans don’t have this supposed sixth sense? In regards to original sin, where people will be eternally destroyed if they cannot grasp the significance, then where is the justice? Are people without use of this sense just supposed to accept the word of those with it? Are their “god-given” capacities for critical thinking, which has given us all the good technologies that rescued us from Medieval miseries (and the internet, so this website can spread Catholic thinking) not also being used in the same mode to question what humans have written on paper about god? By what mechanism is this writing of scripture inspired? Is the skeptic to go against all the science that has worked so spectacularly well for good, and as you say evil too, in all other areas of all our lives, by rejecting that way of seeing the world specifically for the claim that there is much more going on that a majority of the world can’t see? Is there not equal justification for pointing the word “lie” at anyone, theist or atheist? Meantime there are philosophers and neuroscientists who are just beginning to demonstrate why humans would think there is such a dimension to reality, even when there is a paradox created by claiming knowledge of things that are also called unknowable.

Stuart

That is exactly what I am saying, and you are proving my point here. DavidV is correct to say that we all have this “intellect.” Some, through whatever reason, have a more highly developed sense than others, just as you most likely have better vision than I do (w/o glasses that is!). This article is a worthy read;

newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm

You are a passionate defender of your point of view as well, and for that you have my respect, but we are really arguing apples and oranges here. Though we both speak English, neither of us have the vocabulary to reach each other on a fundamental level. I believe that there is more to this life that what is presented to me on a sensual level, because I feel deep in my heart (or gut or whatever you want to call it) that there is more to this world. When I take a hike in the woods, sit by a quite stream and listen to the wind rustle through the trees and hear the birds chirping and the cicadas singing their summer song I KNOW there is more to this world. It is something that I will never be convinced of otherwise. Christianity and in particular Roman Catholicism is how I chose to fit what I know on this intuitive level to a doctrinal/dogmatic framework.
If you do not feel these things in your heart, or intellect, or whatever organ or sense it is, who am I to say otherwise? It is not my place to judge your capacity in this regard.l I can only say what I know to be true, but I am still absolutely convinced that your beliefs are a direct result of your upbringing in a secular, and dare I say nominally christian society that has forgotten its roots in metaphysical/philosophical reality.
I look at the world and country around me and cannot help but think this is true. Society is messed up. Our political system is failing, our economic system is in shambles, families are under attack, we have more problems than we can shake a stick at, even though science and psychology and all these other wonderful branches of learning that have developed since the “enlightenment” promise us an utopian vision of peace and plenty, it is not to be. Our human nature ensures that all these endeavors fail. It wasn’t any better in the middle ages, or antiquity or any other time. We are doomed to failure through our own selfishness, greed, and egoism. This is our "original sin, " our inability to see beyond our self to something greater. In the “garden” we wanted knowledge, but on our terms, not Gods… and so, we pursue wealth, power, glory, fame, fortune, sex as a poor substitute for what we really crave on a profoundly subconscious level.
I am starting to ramble here, but I think you see my point… we have two opposing views of reality and the world we live in. You have put your faith in science, but I have but my faith in something that I know personally to be true and no amount of talking is going to give you that experience. I can only how that perhaps someday you will understand what I am trying to say.

 

[DJK100]

Hi Stuart,

I don’t have much time to engage tonight but I just wanted to bring up a few points for you to think about.

**

DJK100
As with the story of Adam it is possible to invent scenarios that match theology to empirical science, but from the other direction there is no observation that demands the story of Adam as an explanation, just as there is no particular observation about the biological world that demands we consider humans differently from other animal species.

]

True to all those points that there is no observation that demands it. Yet that still does not discount it.

I would suggest you look up Mitochondrial Eve. I admit I am still learning about it but this quote might make you look a little more into your “there cannot be only one progenitory of the human species.”

The article quotes, "*Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. "

They do not claim she was the only female on earth at that time but all current humans trace their root from her.

science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

Obviously this is not a hard science website, but if what they are claiming is correct then you have your single female “Eve,” which you continue to say is impossible. This particular Eve doesn’t have to be THE EVE. But one can easily apply the same application of thought to trace back to get to THE EVE.

**If it was simply a case that a god could love us regardless of what humans did I suppose that could be seen as an act of magnanimity worthy of profound respect, but scripturally that does not quite work when you consider that it is compulsory for us to return the love because indeed there is coercion going on in the form of repeated, clear threats that you will be punished by fire / eternally destroyed if you do not. **

Actually, God does love us regardless of what we do. That is why he give us so many chances and warnings to correct our mistakes.

Also, what you said is not coercison. You can choose to believe in God/Hell/Heaven or not. You can choose to return the love or not. The fact that the consequences are known and still so many people turn from him would again suggest you have your choice. God is not forcing you down one path. It is you choosing the path. The fact that he “threatens you with fire,” could actually be seen as more of a warning of the reality of what is at stake. Which again would could be considered an act of love, by providing you with the knowledge of what you are risking.

If God said you are going to believe this or do this wether you like it or not then you have coercion. But again notice he doesn’t force anyone to do anything. He just tells you of consequences and trys to correct you as any good parent would do. Ultimately you decide. Maybe you view the choices as to limited but they are choices nonetheless.

Is it ethically right that the doctrine of original sin says you were born bad and have no choice but to make yourself well on pain of torment? Is it ethical that you are automatically considered sinful with no right of reply?

If you share in humanity then yes it is ethical that you should attempt to make yourself well to acheive your reward. This is because all of humanity shares in that fallen nature. It is a contracted sin and not a committed sin. Adam’s sin changed the course of humanity as a whole. Orginal sin doesn’t say I was born bad. It just says I was born in a fallen from grace state. I was born like all humans (with the exception of one) with and subject to imperfections – and this is how Adam’s (who was a representative of all humanity) sin affected us. As humans is it not fair to attone for our mistakes?

Again you ask, “is it ethical that you are automatically considered sinful with no right of reply?” and yet you are replying right now. Your reply is to say I don’t believe it or think it is fair so I choose not to subject myself to it. My reply is I believe that we have fallen and I choose to heed the warnings and make myself right by God the best that I can do. These are both choices. It would be unethical if this choice didn’t exist. It would be unethical to say well you have fallen so guess what there is no way out for you. instead, you are given a way out.

continued in next post**

 

[DJK100]

continued from previous

**I still believe there is a fundamental question underpinning this, which leads to problems with other doctrines aside from that of original sin. That is the question of whether a doctrine should be expected to be consistent with empirical evidence, or even be an explanation for evidence: doctrine as scientific theory .Would you say it does? As you will have gathered I believe that much of Genesis can be disproved empirically. It is factual that there never was a time of two humans **

See above for response.

But again this resides on how you want to define humans. I still maintain there had to be a first. Right now we are in a “no way, yes way” debate on this because neither one of us can prove the other wrong. I needn’t remind you that there are many examples throughout history of “scientific fact” being wrong despite intial overwhelming evidence. Again am I saying this is the case here, no. But you cannot say for certain that some new evidence might show up to overthrow what you think either. And yes, you can say you can use this arguement for everything or anything and you would be right. However, in this case I actually think I have enough reason to be able to justify its use.

**there has never been a global flood in the time there has been humans on earth; you literally cannot have the earth before you had light (if Gen 1 is chronological); snakes don’t really talk… But we can’t dismiss something out of hand if its writing is allegorical as much ancient writing was. So I must return here to the point I made originally, and acknowledge that you did answer it from an allegorical point of view too. **

Which is exactly why you don’t have to take it as a literal truth if you do not want to. The bible is not to be read as a science text book. That is where Fundamentalist get into a problems.

** If original sin does not stem from an historical event (I maintain the events of the Garden of Eden are not biologically plausible) then on what basis are humans deemed to be saddle with original sin?**

Because of the truth handed down from God. Again, you and I seem to disagree on the likelyhood of the event and what is literal and what is not. You say it was all impossible, I disagree and have my reason for thinking that their actually could literally be two first humans with the rest maybe being allegorical to help prove a truth or understanding of God.

There is a first for everything is is their not? If we trace back evolution to the very first life form, whatever you want to consider it to be, you still have the first that touched off everything else. So why not with humans? Which brings us back again to what you said about there being no fundamentally difference between animals and humans. I can agree with you to an extent but I do believe there is also something that sets us apart from animals. Which I am sure you disagree with.

The fact of the matter is your religion is Science. That is what you choose to worship (at least is what it appears from what I know of you from your posts here). You trust that science will be able to explain everything. But you can’t know that. You are putting you FAITH into that notion. I am not saying science is bad or wrong or doesn’t have answers, but I put my faith in that there is something above and other from that science in addition.

Are we not just talking about human nature, and so from a theological point of view does the finger of “blame” not then point godwards as supposed creator of human nature? That would be far more consistent with what we observe. A serpent, representing wrongdoing, has waylaid humans from the Proper Path. Is there no questioning of divine motive here? Free will to follow “god-given instinct” and be divinely punished for it? Sounds like a cruel game to me

Yes, human nature came from God. But in that nature is the ability to reason and choose. Why did human nature have to choose to disobey God? Just because you have the option and nature to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it. Self-control is also in human nature is it not. You could choose to rob banks for a living but I suspect quite strongly you do not. It may even be in your nature to be predisposed to violence and really really want to do it but again you can choose not to. So again I don’t think you can finger the blame on God for giving you the choice and the free will to decide how you want his love to manifest in your life. That is just simply denying that you have any responsiblity in this life for any of your actions.

Indeed, I continue to appreciate your engagement on the topic. Similarly I would not wish to come across as if I thought I knew everything. I certainly don’t.

Keep coming back here my friend we can always use more opposing view points – particularly from well spoken individuals such as yourself. By the way you also might be interested in this thread. I will post the topic below and you can search for it. It is kind of along the same lines we have been talking about that I discovered this morning. I think you might have a lot of fun with it. Enjoy!

The Church and evolution vs. You and evolution

 

[Stuu]

That is exactly what I am saying, and you are proving my point here. DavidV is correct to say that we all have this “intellect.” Some, through whatever reason, have a more highly developed sense than others, just as you most likely have better vision than I do (w/o glasses that is!). This article is a worthy read;

newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm

You are a passionate defender of your point of view as well, and for that you have my respect, but we are really arguing apples and oranges here. Though we both speak English, neither of us have the vocabulary to reach each other on a fundamental level. I believe that there is more to this life that what is presented to me on a sensual level, because I feel deep in my heart (or gut or whatever you want to call it) that there is more to this world. When I take a hike in the woods, sit by a quite stream and listen to the wind rustle through the trees and hear the birds chirping and the cicadas singing their summer song I KNOW there is more to this world. It is something that I will never be convinced of otherwise. Christianity and in particular Roman Catholicism is how I chose to fit what I know on this intuitive level to a doctrinal/dogmatic framework.
If you do not feel these things in your heart, or intellect, or whatever organ or sense it is, who am I to say otherwise? It is not my place to judge your capacity in this regard.l I can only say what I know to be true, but I am still absolutely convinced that your beliefs are a direct result of your upbringing in a secular, and dare I say nominally christian society that has forgotten its roots in metaphysical/philosophical reality.
I look at the world and country around me and cannot help but think this is true. Society is messed up. Our political system is failing, our economic system is in shambles, families are under attack, we have more problems than we can shake a stick at, even though science and psychology and all these other wonderful branches of learning that have developed since the “enlightenment” promise us an utopian vision of peace and plenty, it is not to be. Our human nature ensures that all these endeavors fail. It wasn’t any better in the middle ages, or antiquity or any other time. We are doomed to failure through our own selfishness, greed, and egoism. This is our "original sin, " our inability to see beyond our self to something greater. In the “garden” we wanted knowledge, but on our terms, not Gods… and so, we pursue wealth, power, glory, fame, fortune, sex as a poor substitute for what we really crave on a profoundly subconscious level.
I am starting to ramble here, but I think you see my point… we have two opposing views of reality and the world we live in. You have put your faith in science, but I have but my faith in something that I know personally to be true and no amount of talking is going to give you that experience. I can only how that perhaps someday you will understand what I am trying to say.

(Part one)

Regarding the soul, thanks for the reference. I assume I am to take from that the list of qualities that make up, at least in part, the thing known as the soul.

When it comes to our senses of the numinous / awe at the beauty of the universe, I don’t think there is any difference in our experiences, specifically the ones that inspire feelings of awe or “things bigger than ourselves”, I think the only difference is in the interpretation of those experiences.

There is some interesting work on what motivates people to make religious or non-religious interpretations of their experiences. One powerful factor is genetics. Separated twin studies demonstrate that our behaviours and choices are attributable to genetics to the extent of about 45%. Time and again researchers see that separated twins tend to have the same intensity of religious devotion.

So I suppose you and I could be equally good at interpreting our gut feelings about the universe in religious and non-religious terms respectively. This returns me to the point I was making in regards to original sin. What if one’s interpretation comes across empirical evidence that contradicts it? What then?

I personally feel the discovery of knowledge about the universe, including the necessarily provisional nature of that knowledge, informs my spirituality. It is not only that there is no unambiguous evidence for any gods, it is also the potential for an ugly universe that comes from supposing that there exist supernatural beings with intent. That immediately invents the Problem of Evil and the suggestion that religious traditions have asserted the existence of a dictator god, that appears to be demanding compulsory love and is undertaking constant surveillance on all humans. We would be repelled by a political regime that carried on like that, but humans appear happy to invent gods (notwithstanding the fact that you do not feel your god is a human invention, but you must agree humans have invented gods) which have the properties of the most inhumane dictators of any age.

I personally interpret that as an expression of the genes that have given us an advantage in our tribal societies, of believing the leader that tells his tribe that his rules are backed up by divine punishments, which are mysterious and therefore unable to be questioned. You might see the survival advantage of that in tribal society, and perhaps also the severe danger that same kind of thinking presents in a global society…

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

(Part two)

Apparently the research says that god belief is still so prevalent because believers breed more than non-believers. You might have a different take, but the principles of evolution would predict that if an adaptation, that of religious devotion to a political god loses its advantage and becomes a liability to survival as it now appears to be (islamism would be the most obvious example) then it would be expected to decrease in frequency in the population. Too early to tell if that is the source of the plummeting rates of membership of most christian denominations, especially outside the US.

Regarding human nature and modern society, I will have to disagree with you that things are getting worse. Human nature is a product of natural selection, and it has not changed in 30,000 years or far longer. It may be we are starting to see what effects large population size and globalisation does to the way that same human nature is expressed. I think the position the Catholic church has taken on this question of human nature, again doctrinally based in the literally impossible mythology of Adam, is unhelpful to anyone. I am certainly happy to be corrected but it would seem to me that the amount of guilt that tends to be induced by the clergy in the adherents in their churches, and the generally miserable view of humanity encapsulated in original sin does not “give a dog a name” to live up to. It tars with the same dark brush from birth…but gives a way out, which it calls Catholicism. Now that might itself be a very cynical political view, but our genes propel us into building houses and social relationships with particular properties in common across the world, so I would suggest that those genes are building churches in the same way, with the same politico-religious modus operandi, if not variations on the same theme. The links between Scientology, UFO belief and christianity are not as obscure as they might seem at first.

Thanks for your responses, I think it is a very interesting subject, and too bad if strict adherence to the thread topic has not always been obvious!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

DJK100

True to all those points that there is no observation that demands it. Yet that still does not discount it.

Yes, I accept that I am looking at this from an empirical point of view, and that I cannot disprove a negative. But then I don’t really know what a christian means by the word god: I have asked many and each time I get a different answer. With tongue in cheek I should tell you that I couldn’t live my life on such a flimsy foundation! The problem with most religious doctrines is that they actually say nothing testable. So strictly they say nothing of any meaning. He who asserts something untestable leaves himself open to accepting the untestable assertions of any crackpot who for example might be telling you that you are unwell because there is an invisible flying saucer parked on your front lawn, and it is giving off damaging rays. That is as plausible as the nasty doctrines of Medieval times that attributed ill health to sin.

I would suggest you look up Mitochondrial Eve. I admit I am still learning about it but this quote might make you look a little more into your “there cannot be only one progenitory of the human species.”…

I did look up the date of Mitochondrial Eve before my previous post, and decided not to include her for the sake of concision. However it is a very interesting piece of science with all sorts of complicating factors, for example population bottlenecks and conceptual challenges of mathematics. I hope I was careful not to say there was never a time when one person gave rise to the whole human species, because there are many such Eves that are ancestors of all living humans. Go back even just a few tens of thousands of years ago and every one of those ancient people is either an ancestor of no one alive today or is an ancestor of every human alive today. Strange but true! There is a Mitochondrial Eve, a hypotheical person who lived at a reasonably well-known time in prehistory who is the female ancestor we share in common if we only trace back through our female lines of ancestry. Similarly there is Y chromosomal Adam, the ancestor we share in common if we only trace back through our male lines of ancestry. Of course these hypothetical ancestors do not relate to the Adam and Eve of christian mythology because they lived nearly 60,000 years apart.

Actually, God does love us regardless of what we do. That is why he give us so many chances and warnings to correct our mistakes.

You say it like it is a fact, rather than a faith position open to question! Anyway, fair play to you.

Also, what you said is not coercison. You can choose to believe in God/Hell/Heaven or not. You can choose to return the love or not. The fact that the consequences are known and still so many people turn from him would again suggest you have your choice. God is not forcing you down one path. It is you choosing the path. The fact that he “threatens you with fire,” could actually be seen as more of a warning of the reality of what is at stake. Which again would could be considered an act of love, by providing you with the knowledge of what you are risking. But again notice he doesn’t force anyone to do anything. He just tells you of consequences and trys to correct you as any good parent would do. Ultimately you decide. Maybe you view the choices as to limited but they are choices nonetheless. If God said you are going to believe this or do this wether you like it or not then you have coercion.

Forgive me for suggesting that this is a pathological line of thinking. Are you saying here that god does not have any responsibility for administering these consequences? Otherwise, isn’t god telling you “Sorry, I did warn you about what I would have to do to you if you did not follow my “guidance”. That is even creepier than I imagined! Don’t forget that scripture has a lot to say about this. If you do not know god (let alone love god) then it does say you will burn in fires, there is no equivocation about it.

If you share in humanity then yes it is ethical that you should attempt to make yourself well to acheive your reward.

Are you familiar with the stages of ethical thinking of Kohlberg? He would consider the reward as the ethical thinking of someone younger than four years. I am sure that is not where the argument ends, but I’m struggling to see this (and the next bit) as constituting an ethical argument for adopting a religious cure for a dubious ailment.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

DJK100

This is because all of humanity shares in that fallen nature.

Sorry to be so picky and quote you on tiny sections, but I do not share in that “fallen nature”. I wish to defend the dignity of the significant proportion of humanity that does not share this doctrinal view, and respectfully suggest it would be more appropriate for you to couch it in terms that are less offensive, for example speaking for those who agree with your view that they are “fallen” in their nature, and not for those who do not. After all this is not a fact, it is not something that is supported by so much universally accepted evidence that it would be perverse to ignore it, it is actually a religious doctrine which is a matter of opinion.

It is a contracted sin and not a committed sin. Adam’s sin changed the course of humanity as a whole. Orginal sin doesn’t say I was born bad. It just says I was born in a fallen from grace state. I was born like all humans (with the exception of one) with and subject to imperfections – and this is how Adam’s (who was a representative of all humanity) sin affected us. As humans is it not fair to attone for our mistakes?

You are suggesting we should all atone for someone else’s mistake. Maybe the world would be a better place if that was the general principle, but given that the Garden of Eden scenarios are not real, this mistake is one that was invented by ancient Jews, so for what are we atoning?

Again you ask, “is it ethical that you are automatically considered sinful with no right of reply?” and yet you are replying right now. Your reply is to say I don’t believe it or think it is fair so I choose not to subject myself to it. My reply is I believe that we have fallen and I choose to heed the warnings and make myself right by God the best that I can do. These are both choices. It would be unethical if this choice didn’t exist. It would be unethical to say well you have fallen so guess what there is no way out for you. instead, you are given a way out.

Fair point, I do have a right of reply. I have thought about what I would do if Catholic doctrine was actually true, a possibility for which I must reserve a tiny sliver of consideration. Let’s say I was in front of god being judged. I would take the opportunity to ask this god on what basis it judges me, when according to scripture god killed Uzzah when he was only trying to help by steadying the ark of the covenant. I would ask what universal principle was being demonstrated there that might lift humans from their “fallen state”. I might also mention that the Jewish bible has god killing up to 24,000,000 of my fellow humans. I could ask how a god that boasts about that is worthy of judging me, who has never killed anyone. Why should I not be judging that god? You might claim I am already!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

DJK100

The fact of the matter is your religion is Science. That is what you choose to worship (at least is what it appears from what I know of you from your posts here). You trust that science will be able to explain everything. But you can’t know that. You are putting you FAITH into that notion. I am not saying science is bad or wrong or doesn’t have answers, but I put my faith in that there is something above and other from that science in addition.

I don’t think of science as a faith position. It finds great satisfaction in being proved wrong, and indeed part of its fundamental makeup is to disprove as much of it as is possible in order to weed out that which is wrong. I don’t see many Catholics here who would delight in their faith position being proved wrong. For example, the faith position you hold regarding the origins of humanity appears to be completely disproved. It is not even compatible with your acceptance of evolution (which, may I say makes for a much more sophisticated kind of conversation that I have endured with christian fundamentalists!). Do you feel delight or frustration at that contradiction?

Are you sure you are not confusing the word faith with the term untestable assumption? We all have those, but while religions just let the untestable assumptions pile up out of control, science is brutally trying to eliminate as many as it can. I figure that I have two fundamental untestable assumptions and you have four.

Yes, human nature came from God. But in that nature is the ability to reason and choose. Why did human nature have to choose to disobey God? Just because you have the option and nature to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it. Self-control is also in human nature is it not. You could choose to rob banks for a living but I suspect quite strongly you do not. It may even be in your nature to be predisposed to violence and really really want to do it but again you can choose not to. So again I don’t think you can finger the blame on God for giving you the choice and the free will to decide how you want his love to manifest in your life. That is just simply denying that you have any responsiblity in this life for any of your actions.

But then god must have invented the notion of responsibility also.

Keep coming back here my friend we can always use more opposing view points – particularly from well spoken individuals such as yourself. By the way you also might be interested in this thread. I will post the topic below and you can search for it. It is kind of along the same lines we have been talking about that I discovered this morning. I think you might have a lot of fun with it. Enjoy!

Thanks!

Stuart

 

[Pete_Holter]

Eh… I would tend to disagree, but I think you’re interpreting church doctrine on original sin as being too close to Augustine’s version. The church does not teach that we inherit the GUILT of Adams sin, but rather that we inherit a fallen nature which desires sin. There’s a subtle but very important distinction in there. I think if a lot of orthodox realized that we don’t believe in inheritance of personal culpability for original sin that it would go a long way towards reconciling their schism.

Hail, Promethius!

The Council of Trent taught that “by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted” (Decree Concerning Original Sin). You will want to explain what you mean in light of this. I’m not challenging your faith, just giving you an opportunity to share your explanation with holmj. May God bless you!

It seems to me that the entire sordid history of the middle ages and the protestant reformation is due to Augustine’s interpretation of the consequence of Adam’s sin and fall.
As you all know, before becoming Christian Augustine was a Manichean… a gnostic sect infected with a rabid matter/spirit dualism that runs counter to anything seen in Christianity, and yet, it seems to me, that Augustine carried this very dualism into his Christian beliefs… perverting the faith of the early church fathers.

…

I do not think I can any longer accept the Augustinian position or the doctrines stemming from this assumption… So I am putting it to you apologists out there… Can a case be made from the pre-Augustinian fathers for his interpretation of original sin? I would like to think there is… but I have not seen it… and if not is it ok to hold a more Eastern Catholic (or more Orthodox) view? please help!

Augustine tries to trace out this prior history for himself in his work, Against Julian. I have a copy of this in a Word document if you’d like an easy-to-read copy of it. I’m at papist dot pete dot for dot Jesus at gmail dot com. If you’ve listened to the Orthodox Church History lecture on Augustine (your comments remind me of this lecture), please know that there are some misunderstandings of Augustine presented in this lecture. Please also know that Augustine cherished Church unity so very highly; he would be deeply saddened to discover that his writings were being interpreted and used in such a way as to cause disunity between the Eastern and Western Churches. This is the last thing he would want.

Here is an audience from Papa Benedict XVI on the topic. You can also find his comments on the subject from his book written as a cardinal, In the Beginning.

May the Lord grant you the grace of holding the Catholic faith firm to the end!

With love in Christ,
Pete

Help John Bugay

 

[DJK100]

Hi Stuart,

Yes, I accept that I am looking at this from an empirical point of view, and that I cannot disprove a negative. But then I don’t really know what a christian means by the word god: I have asked many and each time I get a different answer.

Have you considered because that in each of these peoples lives God has manifested himself to them slightly differently. The overall nature of God is the same but how you relate to him may be slightly different thus giving you a different but not less true answer. For example I can say I feel God, you say you don’t. Which is true?

**With tongue in cheek I should tell you that I couldn’t live my life on such a flimsy foundation! The problem with most religious doctrines is that they actually say nothing testable. **

That is only because you are holding up the Spiritual realm which man cannot know everything about with the Natural realm. You choose to be completly empircal but there are many things your empircal data cannot answer or even within groups of scientist where data is disputed.

So strictly they say nothing of any meaning.

You can’t possibly think this. If even you don’t agree with it or think it is wrong or a fable, you cannot say that many people have not derived strong morals and even altruistic behavior from it. Of course, you can assert you don’t have to have it to have these morals, but I feel you cannot possibly say it doesn’t say nothing of meaning when the whole book is focused on loving and caring for you fellow man. Even if you think it drives man to be evil and cruel is that not still saying somethiing of meaning and providing a foil for your nature as well?

 

[DJK100]

continued

B]He who asserts something untestable leaves himself open to accepting the untestable assertions of any crackpot who for example might be telling you that you are unwell because there is an invisible flying saucer parked on your front lawn, and it is giving off damaging rays. That is as plausible as the nasty doctrines of Medieval times that attributed ill health to sin.

True, but again this is why you have your reason to help you through those claims. It is also why you have free will to make the choice on what you want to believe. As for Medieval times and those nasty doctrines, well we have science that helped straightened out those misconceptions did we not. The same science that the Church accepts. You can’t tell me though that if you lived in that age, and the best minds of the time concurred that Sin was causing ill health that you wouldn’t at least subject yourself to that opinion. Face it, at that time maybe the most empircical data you had pointed in that direction, so by your logic you would accept it based upon its “empircal truth.”

There is a Mitochondrial Eve, a hypotheical person who lived at a reasonably well-known time in prehistory who is the female ancestor we share in common if we only trace back through our female lines of ancestry. Similarly there is Y chromosomal Adam, the ancestor we share in common if we only trace back through our male lines of ancestry. Of course these hypothetical ancestors do not relate to the Adam and Eve of christian mythology because they lived nearly 60,000 years apart.

Actually the best data right now points to Y Adam being only 10,000 years apart from mitoEve. I don’t have to tell you the trickiness of the molecular clock and the difficulty of dating these times. For instance, if you don’t account for a Y chromosome or miss a certain Y population, or misestimate the rate of mutation your numbers get skewed. This still doesn’t invalidate the point though you can trace back human ancestry to one Eve at present. So why not be able to trace it all they way back? But again we get into the discussion about what makes a human a human.
.
**B]**Forgive me for suggesting that this is a pathological line of thinking. Are you saying here that god does not have any responsibility for administering these consequences? **** Otherwise, isn’t god telling you “Sorry, I did warn you about what I would have to do to you if you did not follow my “guidance”. That is even creepier than I imagined! Don’t forget that scripture has a lot to say about this. If you do not know god (let alone love god) then it does say you will burn in fires, there is no equivocation about it.

Of course God has responsibility for administering the consequences. But we have responsibilty for choosing those consquences. You choose the left or the right path. You make up your mind what you want to do. But you are not doing this blindly, you know what the consquences and choices are. If the part of the purpose of man is to obtain such a state of Grace to be able to live with a perfect god, then as imperfect beings we would not be able to be one with a perfect God – that would mean that our imperfection now makes God imperfect. Either you are able to obtain that perfection and live with God or you do not and suffer a separation. It is your choice and your responsibilty. God gives you the free will to choose it. As for the scripture part that is not necessarily true.

You should look up Doctrine of Baptism by Intention, I think it is called. It means that even if you didn’t know God you can still be saved because you responded to his grace enough to practice his principles. This is also seen I think in the concept of Natural law where even pagan religions contain an element of truth in them because we as humanity can observe the natural world and deduce certain facts from it.

**Are you familiar with the stages of ethical thinking of Kohlberg? He would consider the reward as the ethical thinking of someone younger than four years. I am sure that is not where the argument ends, but I’m struggling to see this (and the next bit) as constituting an ethical argument for adopting a religious cure for a dubious ailment. **

Fine, maybe reward was the wrong word to choose. How about to achieve a wholeness of person that one is lacking. But even you must admit that there are other was of thinking about ethics than Kohlberg, so your comment about it being the ethical thinking of someone younger than four really doesn’t apply.

continued below.