Original Sin

[Pete_Holter]

Hello all,
On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

Greetings in the LORD!

If you’d like to read Augustine’s discussion on the freedom of will that Adam and Eve enjoyed, you can check out Chapters 26-38 of On Rebuke and Grace. Have a blessed day!

In Christ,
Pete

“If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…”

 

[edwest2]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

First, God did not create robots. He could have created His angels without free will, and without the ability to disobey Him, but just like ordinary people, you can’t force anyone to love you. The same with Adam and Eve, if they could not choose between good and evil, and choose to be obedient, then God would have made them entirely good robots. You can’t love a being that is a slave to you, but you can love someone who chooses to love you as you love them - freely and mutually.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ask yourself. Why was Jesus born? Why did He have to die as a sacrifice? Why did He become flesh? “I came to call sinners to repentence.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[greylorn]

No, I’m almost 100% sure this is from the new Catechism. It’s a more Eastern understanding of Original Sin than previously taught to Latins. I’ll check:

Checking, checking

Ah, here’s an official confirmation.

Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

T*he most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all **stain of original sin***.

This is from 1854. This is referring, of course, specifically to Mary, but Original Sin is Original Sin.

The Catechism, admittedly, refers to “inheriting Original Sin”, but the dogma is more official, since the Catechism is only a summary of teachings, and more precise. (I will, however, admit up front that I was wrong about what the CATECHISM said and was probably thinking of the wording of the dogma). I think it’s simply a subtle distinction. The Church’s explanation on Original Sin matches up pretty nicely with what my theology teacher explained about the specifics of STAIN of Original Sin.

The difference in wording just makes it more precise. That’s natural for a declared dogma, which has to be extremely precise with every word since it’s theoretically infallible.

Just check out the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church, it’s all online. Google “Catechism Second Edition Original Sin”.

I’d talk more about the poo argument, but 1) “Stain” is just a more precise way of wording the official Catechism’s teaching 2) Everything useful is in the articles I linked and 3) I’m tired.

[Yes, bringing up what I learned in theology is technically an argument from authority. I myself have tremendous respect for this particular teacher, who taught me more about
Catholicism in two years of High School than everything I’d learned in the rest of my Catholic education (CCD and two years of High School) combined. So you can take my word that this teacher is an expert or not. If not, that’s your prerogative. Just know that I consider this source very trustworthy. ]

Marc,
This is a much more thoughtful response than I figured on receiving— thank you! Your work is a good example for the CAF’s devout members.

Let’s pick on “stain,” for a bit. I do an awful lot of writing, or as some would say, a lot of awful writing. My preference is for short, pithy statements and blunt logic, and sentences structured mostly from nouns and verbs. However, by studying the styles of more successful writers I’ve learned to throw in various adverbs and adjectives. These embellish the text and make it more comfortable to the reader, like potted plants, pillows, and art work add texture to a home’s living room.

I am inclined to interpret the Pope’s choice of “stain” (more likely the choice of various scholarly writers within the Vatican) as a literary embellishment, something to help a person develop a visual image of the soul.

When young, I visualized the soul as a shmoo-like thing (from the Al Capp Little Abner comic strip), but without legs or the willingness to turn itself into a steak. Today I’d visualize it as a small, white version of The Blob, from the Steve McQueen movie. With the help of Dominican nuns, I visualized the soul as coming into life totally black (the stain) and then being whitened by Baptism. Later, when I learned about sin and became officially capable of sinning, I envisioned the soul as graying up a bit with each venial sin, then bleached in Confession. Later, as I and my female classmates ventured into puberty, my soul became mottled with black specks until it looked like a shmoo’s pet Dalmatian.

My current soul-concept is a bit more exotic, and mathematically definable, and my beliefs do not admit the notion of original sin, except in this sense:

I’ve found it useful to accept a modified concept of reincarnation, wherein what you would call the soul (I call it beon) returns to experience life in multiple bodies, in order to more fully develop consciousness. A reincarnating soul, or beon, will naturally carry with it some baggage from prior incarnations, not all of which will be good. I can envision serious evildoers returning with a heavy weight of evil within their core, just as scholars will return with a higher level of understanding.

Interpreting the weight of past evil as Original Sin makes a certain kind of religious sense, but I cannot buy the Catholic belief that it is somehow transmitted to all mankind because of the minor transgression of a pair of alleged ancestors.

The question is not how we might describe or visualize the O.S. event, but the inherent validity of the idea. This question remains whether O.S. is a real sin, or just some shoe polish on a newborn shmoo. Real questions look like this:

1. What is the mechanism for its transmission?
2. If its effect is to keep a “soul” from entering “heaven,” why should that be?

---

Finally, I’m not especially impressed with authority figures as sources of truth. The best of them can be fine sources of knowledge and information, but the knowledge and information they pass along is often wrong.

The worst of them are merely skilled apologists for ideas that are dreadfully wrong, like the President’s press secretary, or biologists who tout Darwinism as a valid explanation for species development.

I have unbounded respect for the wonderful teachers in my life who would honestly discuss a subject and admit that their best understanding of some things could be, or probably is, wrong.

While I love an elegant theory as much as a well crafted story, reality and logic shape my personal opinions-- at least insofar as I can understand reality and apply logic.

 

[greylorn]

They’re not entirely, my own, as all the NFP literature and stuff I’ve read about the soul, specifically says that humans are co-creators with God in the reproductive process. This is the basis for the Church’s stance against artificial birth control.

Saying something does not make it so. Like other people who strive to use words honestly, I object strongly to the “co-creator with God” notion. It is simply neurolinguistic programming.

Creation involves conscious imagination. I’ve done a few creative things, so I know. Writing this post, for example, involves a mix of creative and autonomous activities. At the level of conscious mind, I must gather ideas and select word-patterns that might convey them to another mind. In the meantime, my fingers are typing the words pretty much all by themselves— a totally non-creative set of actions that I learned long, long ago. If I think about the typing process, it slows down and becomes less accurate.

I have fathered three, possibly four offspring. I did not manage this by virtue of any creative act whatsoever. All I wanted to do was have sex, a desire fueled by physiological chemistry and my brain’s pre-programmed attraction for a woman. I had no more than the vaguest idea of the actual internal biological mechanics involved in the connection of sperm with egg, and at the time, could not have cared less.

Moreover, intelligence was not even involved. I never wanted to have children-- I only wanted, at that time of my life, to have sex. The offspring were an undesired by-product (who turned out to be good and even interesting people).

When I set out to create something, I begin with a sense of how I want it to turn out. If I’m writing a computer program, it is to perform a certain set of complex logical tasks which I anticipate in advance. If I’m writing a book, I know how it ends. Writing this post, I know in advance what I want it to say.

Impregnating a woman is not like that at all. I had no predictions about the outcome, knowing only that if I formed any, they would all be wrong.

So, I do not buy this “co-creator” nonsense. It abuses the meaning of the word “create” and its derivatives.

You seem to be knowledgeable of the Catechism, even if you don’t believe it, can you point me to what the Church teaches on the soul.

I attended 12 years of Catholic school, the last three under excellent Norbertine priests, and was a serious student. But I no longer follow Church dogma. By way of reference, as a previous poster mentioned, the new Catechism is available online. However I cannot recommend it. I’ve studied those sections of it that were pertinent to various CAF discussions, and find it to be vague, and often obfuscating. It strikes me as something written like a clever politician’s speech, that can be interpreted equally favorably by Democrats and Republicans (but not by T-Party folks!). Unlike the upfront style of the old Baltimore Catechism, I interpret the New Catechism as a disingenuous interpretation of beliefs by theologians who do not necessarily believe what they write.

I shall assume that you are on a philosophy forum because you are interested in a wide range of ideas, even those of which the Church itself might not approve. You might want to peruse this website page, beon-cpt.com/page6T.html for alternative notions of the nature of soul.

 

[fhansen]

The question is not how we might describe or visualize the O.S. event, but the inherent validity of the idea. This question remains whether O.S. is a real sin, or just some shoe polish on a newborn shmoo. Real questions look like this:

1. What is the mechanism for its transmission?
2. If its effect is to keep a “soul” from entering “heaven,” why should that be?

Sin- opposition to Gods will (opposition to God)-is hell; we have a foretaste of it here and now, experiencing (knowing) both good and evil in this life. And, BTW, according to Pope Benedict in ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, God is heaven.

The purpose of the doctrine of OS is to make us ask the question, “Is good-and therefore evil-real? Or are they just fabricated concepts? Is sin, IOW, real, and if so, what causes this situation, what’s its’ source? Why should humans ever participate in* unnatural *behavior, often seemingly taking it for granted, behaving as if it is natural? Or are genocide, murder, torture, rape, petty gossip, lying, cheating, embezzling really natural for man? Was there something better intended for this world originally-or is this Gods’ best effort?

I think the term “stain” is a dated and less useful one nowadays. But the teaching on OS means to tell us about a change in man in any case, something missing, an innocence lost that’s the cause of human sin-and unhappiness- in this world. And since evil is really just the absence of good, the most glaring ‘stain’, the most obvious injustice residing in man, is his lack of communion with God, the ultimate in unnatural situations, a rift which was never meant to be and one which almost completely compromises man’s moral integrity.

That’s the Catholic answer, anyway. Man must come to learn just what he lost, like the Prodigal, so he can gain the wisdom to return home. He needs to realize that he is lost, born lost, so he can turn and find his way back. And in the meantime, presumably, he’s also potentially growing; he’s co-creating with God, so to speak, becoming a greater being in the process via the time, experience, revelation/grace this life affords-a greater good being gained from the evil that created beings have chosen to embrace and introduce into their world. In this way and with this material God the Potter molds His clay. That’s the overall picture from my understanding.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe you take issue with the word “proven,” but the current scientific consensus is that there needed to be multiple first humans to make the species viable. I believe 30-50 humans is the current prediction. Since this is the consensus, I think the burden of proof rests on those who think otherwise. Is there any scientific data that actually points towards the possibility of a single male and female progenitor? Please show me sources in scientific journals, if you know of any.

Since I am in the middle of pre-human research, please, I would like to know which scientific research paper predicted 30-50 humans… Thank you.

Depending on the particular genes or part of the genome being studied, the estimated population of breeding pairs, not necessarily human beings, ranges from 1,000 to 10,000 and quite a bit higher over a period of x–amount of years. However, there have been research papers offering a very low population of breeding pairs based on a particular group or sequence of genes. There are 20,000 to 25,000 human genes.

One of the many reasons, I would like to know the research you are referring to is because “consensus” is pale in comparison to an analytic study of the evidence.
Basically, a published research paper’s singular conclusion is warranted by the evidence. Basically, an universal exclusion is not warranted by the presented evidence.

Besides, this one is really the least concern of my original sin questions. I’m more comfortable believing in a mythological Adam and Eve and a view of original sin as a tendency towards immorality, than I am view of original sin that necessarily makes God the complicit in evil.

Unfortunately, I am finding out that there are many Catholics who are guessing at who Adam is and what happened when he shattered his relationship with his Creator. Catholic teaching includes a lot more than those cutesy children’s books which picture a smiling couple standing behind a large bush with lots of leaves appropriately placed. Original Sin, itself, is not a tendency toward anything and God is not complicit in evil. Evil, meaning sin, is connected to Adam because the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man.

My apology for being technical when it comes to natural science. However, it is time to realize that science is not some kind of magic; rather it is a lot of hard work by dedicated people whom I sincerely respect. This is why people need to be careful when they take a particular conclusion and extrapolate it to an universal one. Yes, Adam may not be probable in the scientific domain of the material/physical; however, Adam is definitely possible.

 

[grannymh]

Your first problem isn’t a problem. Scientists have not proven the a single first pair of humans did not occur. Theirs position is based on speculation and questionable assumptions that drive the computer models they use in a vain attempt to predict the past.

This is correct. Thank you.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc,
This is a much more thoughtful response than I figured on receiving— thank you! Your work is a good example for the CAF’s devout members.

Thank you very much for the compliment. I will say in turn that although I do not share a lot of your conclusions I find all of your posts to be thought provoking and original.

Let’s pick on “stain,” for a bit. I do an awful lot of writing, or as some would say, a lot of awful writing. My preference is for short, pithy statements and blunt logic, and sentences structured mostly from nouns and verbs. However, by studying the styles of more successful writers I’ve learned to throw in various adverbs and adjectives. These embellish the text and make it more comfortable to the reader, like potted plants, pillows, and art work add texture to a home’s living room.

I am inclined to interpret the Pope’s choice of “stain” (more likely the choice of various scholarly writers within the Vatican) as a literary embellishment, something to help a person develop a visual image of the soul.

Perhaps you’re right…I think the concept of the “stain” of Original Sin as opposed to merely inheriting Original Sin is a linguistic device that just disappeared over time. The idea of “stain” I think is meant to distinguish that we’re inheriting the consequences of Original Sin, as opposed to us having actually committed the sin ourselves. The distinction is subtle and modern usage of the term “Original Sin” follow that same concept but simply leaves out the word “stain”.

Of course, as you correctly point out, this DOES raise other problems, but at any rate I think this is what the distinction is. Nowadays it’s pretty unimportant since “inheriting Original Sin” and “inheriting the stain of Original Sin” have come to mean the same thing.

Or-you could be right and it was a mere literary embellishment Either way.

When young, I visualized the soul as a shmoo-like thing (from the Al Capp Little Abner comic strip), but without legs or the willingness to turn itself into a steak. Today I’d visualize it as a small, white version of The Blob, from the Steve McQueen movie. With the help of Dominican nuns, I visualized the soul as coming into life totally black (the stain) and then being whitened by Baptism. Later, when I learned about sin and became officially capable of sinning, I envisioned the soul as graying up a bit with each venial sin, then bleached in Confession. Later, as I and my female classmates ventured into puberty, my soul became mottled with black specks until it looked like a shmoo’s pet Dalmatian.

My current soul-concept is a bit more exotic, and mathematically definable, and my beliefs do not admit the notion of original sin, except in this sense:

I’ve found it useful to accept a modified concept of reincarnation, wherein what you would call the soul (I call it beon) returns to experience life in multiple bodies, in order to more fully develop consciousness. A reincarnating soul, or beon, will naturally carry with it some baggage from prior incarnations, not all of which will be good. I can envision serious evildoers returning with a heavy weight of evil within their core, just as scholars will return with a higher level of understanding.

Hm, very interesting idea. A couple of questions, though. How in this theory is a rising population accounted for? Is there a way to distinguish a “new” soul from a “recycled” one? What determines what body a “recycled” soul (or beon) comes back in? What role does sex (as in, gender) play? How many of the qualities of the “beon” or dependent on the body? Can “Beons” return in animal bodies?

Interpreting the weight of past evil as Original Sin makes a certain kind of religious sense, but I cannot buy the Catholic belief that it is somehow transmitted to all mankind because of the minor transgression of a pair of alleged ancestors.

Dr. Feser uses an analogy something like this in the second article he wrote on Original Sin: Imagine your ancestors were given a beautiful, luxurious estate from a rich benefactor. The benefactor gives your ancestors this estate absolutely free, and he says it can stay in your family line forever on one condition: You can use everywhere on the estate but the pool.

Well naturally you eventually get bored with horseback riding and all of that nonsense and decide to use the pool. And you’re caught. So the benefactor throws you out of the house, and the deal is off for you and any family you may have in the future. This, of course, is meant to be analogous to the Genesis account of the Fall.

The question is not how we might describe or visualize the O.S. event, but the inherent validity of the idea. This question remains whether O.S. is a real sin, or just some shoe polish on a newborn shmoo. Real questions look like this:

1. What is the mechanism for its transmission?
2. If its effect is to keep a “soul” from entering “heaven,” why should that be?

The analogy used above is a very basic attempt at an answer (and those are good questions).​

Finally, I’m not especially impressed with authority figures as sources of truth. The best of them can be fine sources of knowledge and information, but the knowledge and information they pass along is often wrong.

The worst of them are merely skilled apologists for ideas that are dreadfully wrong, like the President’s press secretary, or biologists who tout Darwinism as a valid explanation for species development.

I have unbounded respect for the wonderful teachers in my life who would honestly discuss a subject and admit that their best understanding of some things could be, or probably is, wrong.

While I love an elegant theory as much as a well crafted story, reality and logic shape my personal opinions-- at least insofar as I can understand reality and apply logic.

Fair response.

One last point: I’m 18 years old and graduated High School in June. I am by no means an expert. I was here a couple of years ago and acted like a right arrogant little punk, but two years later after taking a break from the forums I’m making a concerted effort to act more humble.

In short: I don’t really know THAT much. I’m explaining what I do (think I) know, fielding questions the best way I can, and attempting to think my way through difficult and interesting questions. But there’s going to be stuff I won’t know, or stuff I’m flat out wrong about. I’m too young right now to be an authority on anything.

I just figured this was appropriate to say.

 

[grannymh]

A better analogy to the event known as “The Fall” is one which pertains to two different living individuals.

When one delves into the first three chapters of Genesis, one finds a Creator and His creature. It should be obvious to the reader that a creature is not the same as his Creator so the first question is – how does a creature maintain the loving relationship with his Creator as described in the first three chapters of Genesis?

 

[kompaz]

Well naturally you eventually get bored with horseback riding and all of that nonsense and decide to use the pool. And you’re caught. So the benefactor throws you out of the house, and the deal is off for you and any family you may have in the future. This, of course, is meant to be analogous to the Genesis account of the Fall.

Nice try, but it completely ignores why the benefactor doesn’t want you to use the pool.

The critical part of the story is God’s comment in Gen 3:22 (NIV):

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

And funnily enough, this is exactly how the serpent pitched the fruit to Eve:

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Why did God lie about the fruit?

Why didn’t God want man to know good and evil?

Why didn’t God want man to be inmmortal?

He doesn’t come accross as a benefactor, does he?

 

[kompaz]

Your first problem isn’t a problem. Scientists have not proven the a single first pair of humans did not occur.

You cannot prove a negative.

I can claim that scientists have not proven that there are no invisible pink unicorns. However, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with the presence of invisible pink unicorns, and in fact, current understanding of the world precludes their existence.

Likewise, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with a single progenitor pair, and in fact, current understanding of population genetics precludes a single progenitor pair.

Theirs position is based on speculation and questionable assumptions that drive the computer models they use in a vain attempt to predict the past.

Do you have a PhD in molecular genetics?

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

Since I am in the middle of pre-human research, please, I would like to know which scientific research paper predicted 30-50 humans… Thank you.

Depending on the particular genes or part of the genome being studied, the estimated population of breeding pairs, not necessarily human beings, ranges from 1,000 to 10,000 and quite a bit higher over a period of x–amount of years. However, there have been research papers offering a very low population of breeding pairs based on a particular group or sequence of genes. There are 20,000 to 25,000 human genes.

One of the many reasons, I would like to know the research you are referring to is because “consensus” is pale in comparison to an analytic study of the evidence.
Basically, a published research paper’s singular conclusion is warranted by the evidence. Basically, an universal exclusion is not warranted by the presented evidence.

Unfortunately, I am finding out that there are many Catholics who are guessing at who Adam is and what happened when he shattered his relationship with his Creator. Catholic teaching includes a lot more than those cutesy children’s books which picture a smiling couple standing behind a large bush with lots of leaves appropriately placed. Original Sin, itself, is not a tendency toward anything and God is not complicit in evil. Evil, meaning sin, is connected to Adam because the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man.

My apology for being technical when it comes to natural science. However, it is time to realize that science is not some kind of magic; rather it is a lot of hard work by dedicated people whom I sincerely respect. This is why people need to be careful when they take a particular conclusion and extrapolate it to an universal one. Yes, Adam may not be probable in the scientific domain of the material/physical; however, Adam is definitely possible.

Thank you for the specific research numbers, which I find quite helpful. I wish I could point you to the specific paper where I found the 30-50 different individuals number. Alas, it was something I read last year when I was researching evolution. The study was not about human origins per se, but a theoretical analysis on the minimum number of individuals necessary to keep the human race viable over time.

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

The STAIN of original sin is what is inherited; the Catechism’s wording on this point is very specific.

I HIGHLY encourage you to read these two articles by Doctor Feser. One article alone is pretty short but both together are maybe medium length (15-20 minutes? If you read fast ten). Don’t worry, Dr. Feser is a terrific writer and the articles are very easy to digest and extraordinarily helpful:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Believe me when I say they’re well worth your time

EDIT: If you’re pressed on time, article 2 is especially helpful-but I recommend both.

I’ve managed to read through these links, but I find his starting points a bit problematic. He is essentially asking his readers to ignore scientific evidence for polygenism in exchange for a metaphysical argument on why monogenism makes sense in an ideal platonic world. Aside from the articles suffering from the ought/is fallacy, he assumes his readers will just accept his Aristotelian realist metaphysics.

 

[grannymh]

You cannot prove a negative.

I can claim that scientists have not proven that there are no invisible pink unicorns. However, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with the presence of invisible pink unicorns, and in fact, current understanding of the world precludes their existence.

Likewise, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with a single progenitor pair, and in fact, current understanding of population genetics precludes a single progenitor pair.

Do you have a PhD in molecular genetics?

No PhD in molecular genetics. But I have an understanding of how scientists conduct genetic research by reading published research papers. If you have citations, I would like to read them, especially the anthropology ones since there has been shift in this area.

In the domain of natural science, there is a big difference between probability and possibility. Once one understands the relationship of *both *probability and possibility to the research paper’s particular conclusion regarding specific genes, a section of the genome, or some broader study of genetics, one can understand how there is the possibility of Adam and Eve. Note: technically, natural science research cannot distinguish between non-human breeding pairs and the very first pair of humans lovingly known as the biblical Adam and Eve. This is why the philosophy of “transition” involves huge amounts of years.

 

[grannymh]

I’ve managed to read through these links, but I find his starting points a bit problematic. He is essentially asking his readers to ignore scientific evidence for polygenism in exchange for a metaphysical argument on why monogenism makes sense in an ideal platonic world. Aside from the articles suffering from the ought/is fallacy, he assumes his readers will just accept his Aristotelian realist metaphysics.

I have only read a few paragraphs written by Dr. Feser so my comments are not directed to him.

In the world off line, there is a very serious debate regarding polygenism vs. monogenism. Basically, scientific evidence for polygenism applies to non-human populations because a spiritual soul cannot evolve or emerge culturally from a group of decomposing material/physical anatomies. Of course, if one places the spiritual soul in the same category of an invisible pink unicorn, then the doctrine of Original Sin can be dismissed by those wishing to change Catholic doctrine to fit their personal perspective of what is “modern”.

Life is not easy for those who believe in Catholicism.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Nice try, but it completely ignores why the benefactor doesn’t want you to use the pool.

The critical part of the story is God’s comment in Gen 3:22 (NIV):

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

And funnily enough, this is exactly how the serpent pitched the fruit to Eve:

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Why did God lie about the fruit?

Why didn’t God want man to know good and evil?

Why didn’t God want man to be inmmortal?

He doesn’t come accross as a benefactor, does he?

This is merely the problem of evil and that’s a topic for another time.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

IHe is essentially asking his readers to ignore scientific evidence for polygenism in exchange for a metaphysical argument on why monogenism makes sense in an ideal platonic world. Aside from the articles suffering from the ought/is fallacy, he assumes his readers will just accept his Aristotelian realist metaphysics.

1. I thought that he was trying to formulate a concept of theological monogenism that was compatible with scientific polygenism. Basically he was trying to say that even with a gene pool that scientists would consider to be polygenic (I’m sort of making up words here but you know what I mean) it could fit with the Church’s definition of monogenism when formulated correctly.
2. What are you referring to in regards to the is/ought fallacy?
3. Yes, he DOES assume readers will accept his Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. He’s not arguing for WHY Aristotelian-Thomism is true but rather trying to explain how an Aristotelian-Thomist would answer the arguments presented. I, personally, do agree with the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, so the arguments are sound to me.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

One more thing:

Why did God lie about the fruit?

I think you know exactly how Catholics would answer this question. I suggest challenging the Catholic answer instead of posing an extremely common argument as a devestating logical problem Catholic apologists have never considered before.

Have issues with the logic of the Catholic answer if you want to, but let’s not pretend that Catholics don’t have an answer to that question. It’s a pointless game.

 

[fhansen]

Nice try, but it completely ignores why the benefactor doesn’t want you to use the pool.

Adam used the pool after all and the world we live in, where children are tortured and genocide takes place, is what we got. The benefactor knew better but He prized the free will of man too much to stop him from jumping in.

The critical part of the story is God’s comment in Gen 3:22 (NIV):

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

And funnily enough, this is exactly how the serpent pitched the fruit to Eve:

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Why did God lie about the fruit?

Why didn’t God want man to know good and evil?

Why didn’t God want man to be inmmortal?

He doesn’t come accross as a benefactor, does he?

He wanted man to live forever but didn’t want sin, (opposition to His perfect will), to endure forever in His universe-and man carried sin since man had distanced himself from that flawless will by jumping into the pool. Gods’ plan of salvation always includes helping, without forcing, man to come to freely see that the pool he chose to jump into isn’t worth swimming in.

 

[grannymh]

This is merely the problem of evil and that’s a topic for another time.

Actually, post 30 is related to Original Sin.

Only some, not all people do not completely understand the Catholic doctrines related to Original Sin – which results in similar posts all over the forums. My suggestion is for Catholics to spend time studying paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.