Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Crocus]

So the argument would go: ‘Oh yeah. Of course (insert any intelligent animal of your choice here) exhibit rational behaviour. But they can’t (insert something only Man can do)!’

The portion of rational behavior that only Man can do, is to recognize within himself, that spark of immortality (the soul) that connects him to what he may call “God.” That is what made Adam the first real human.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So the argument would go: ‘Oh yeah. Of course (insert any intelligent animal of your choice here) exhibit rational behaviour. But they can’t (insert something only Man can do)!’

The portion of rational behavior that only Man can do, is to recognize within himself, that spark of immortality (the soul) that connects him to what he may call “God.” That is what made Adam the first real human.

Well, there you go (not as if that answer was unexpected). So it beats me why we are trying to define what rationality means so we can determine who has it when it’s only Man that has it in any case. It’s like looking for a definition of literature just so we can tell what animals posses it.

Notwithstanding that part of the reason for ‘rational animal’ being brought up is because it is used in a number of proposals, each following from the other (material, rational animal, essence or form, soul , immortal soul) which leads inescapably to God. But you are suggesting that one of the proposals, that man is a rational animal, is dependent on knowledge of God.

So one of the proposals leading to the conclusion requires that the conclusion is true for that proposal for it to be valid. Now I didn’t do logic when I was in school but I’m sure there’s something wrong there.

 

[Crocus]

Too soon?

 

[Freddy]

Too soon?

Sorry, crocus. Too soon…for what?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

He is saying what Catholics are NOT at liberty to hold, even though he says elsewhere in the encylclical that they may study evolution, he is very clear on what conclusion could not be drawn.

What the Pope says in an encyclical is not unchangeable, not even unchallengeable. Fortunately for the Church, the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to encyclicals. ‘Ex cathedra’ statements are very formally flagged, and, not surprisingly, staggeringly rare.

It matter very much how evil came to be if you think that you need to be saved by a divine being.

I think that Pope Benedict, as understood from his address quoted above, would disagree. What matters is that you are in need of saving, and how to be saved, not how you came to be in that state in the first place. If we are drowning in a flood, what is important to us and our rescuers is how to get out, not how we got in.

 

[Gorgias]

So the argument would go: ‘Oh yeah. Of course (insert any intelligent animal of your choice here) exhibit rational behaviour. But they can’t (insert something only Man can do)!’

No. The argument would be that only humans possess a rational soul. Animals exhibit behaviors, but do not possess rationality.

That animals other than Man exhibit reason is beyond doubt.

We’ve been talking in this thread about what evidence of rationality might consist of. Allyson posited that “use [of] symbolic communication”, “art”, and “the ability to pass along complex technology” would be good indicators. If it’s “beyond doubt” that non-human animals “exhibit reason”, perhaps you can show me examples of these actions in the animal kingdom?

 

[Maximian]

The Bible itself does not suggest that Adam was man’s only genetic ancestor. When his son Cain was driven away for murdering his brother, he built a city which he named Enoch after his son (Gen 4:17), so obviously there were enough people already to populate it

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So the argument would go: ‘Oh yeah. Of course (insert any intelligent animal of your choice here) exhibit rational behaviour. But they can’t (insert something only Man can do)!’

No. The argument would be that only humans possess a rational soul. Animals exhibit behaviors, but do not possess rationality.

That animals other than Man exhibit reason is beyond doubt.

We’ve been talking in this thread about what evidence of rationality might consist of. Allyson posited that “use [of] symbolic communication”, “art”, and “the ability to pass along complex technology” would be good indicators. If it’s “beyond doubt” that non-human animals “exhibit reason”, perhaps you can show me examples of these actions in the animal kingdom?

I don’t know what is meant by a rational soul. The soul is meant to be the form of a rational animal. Does it posses rationality in itself?

And Alyson has given excellent examples of human rationality. But we wouldn’t expect other animals to exhibit those specific examples. We need to go back to the definition of the word so we don’t fall into the trap of only suggesting it’s that which only Man could exhibit. And the definition is: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

As regards reason, it’s a pretty basic ability. ‘If I do X then I can expect Y’. We don’t need to crank it up to the level of passing on complex technology. When lions hunt they don’t simply chase food. They hunt in packs and you’d have a hard time convincing me that doesn’t involve forward thinking and internal conditional thoughts such as ‘if I do this then that will happen’.

But of course you are free to claim that animals don’t really understand what they are doing. But if they exhibit all the signs of rational behaviour then you’re going to have to explain why it isn’t. Apart from using a conclusion to deny a proposal trying to reach a conclusion and suggesting that only Man can do that.

 

[Gorgias]

And Alyson has given excellent examples of human rationality.

I see. Backpedaling, then? Now there’s “human rationality” and “animal rationality”? Even before you can define one, you’re positing another undefined one? Hmm…

They hunt in packs and you’d have a hard time convincing me that doesn’t involve forward thinking and internal conditional thoughts such as ‘if I do this then that will happen’.

Occam’s razor, friend. Don’t posit a more complex answer (“rationality”) when a less complex answer suffices (“instinct”, “mimicry”, etc).

But if they exhibit all the signs of rational behaviour then you’re going to have to explain why it isn’t.

But… they don’t. At least, when your feet are held to the fire, you stop claiming that they do, and start hand-waving about different “rationalities”. In any case, I can posit that you’re simply anthropomorphizing, which is no less a valid explanation as “Bambi can really exhibit rationality” is.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

When his son Cain was driven away for murdering his brother, he dwellt in “other cities”, so obviously there were enough people already to populate at least two cities

Can you give Chapter and Verse for that?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But if they exhibit all the signs of rational behaviour then you’re going to have to explain why it isn’t.

But… they don’t.

Roger that. Then not much further we can go. But why then are we looking for a definition? Wasn’t it to decide what posesses rationality? If you are of the opinion that nothing except man posesses it then it seems a fool’s errand. Just announce that and we are done.

 

[Maximian]

Actually no, I was misquoting from memory. In fact Cain himself built a city (Gen 4:17).

This doesn’t alter my point however.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Wasn’t it to decide what posesses rationality? If you are of the opinion that nothing except man posesses it then it seems a fool’s errand.

The problem here is with assumptions being made about what “rationality” means. It’s really not useful at all to try to use such a broad term to define that which makes humans unique. Using the word rationality in order to separate humans from animals is a very outdated notion. I mean like really outdated.

@Gorgias is using the word rationality to mean theoretical reason, and @Freddy is using the word rationality to mean practical reason.

The whole discussion is quite frankly academic, without any academic merit (including my contribution). It seems you are having a hard time defining the obvious i.e. the uniqueness of humans. It doesn’t matter what word you use to define it. Call it whatever. But it’s obvious that animals don’t have discussions about rationality which serve to feed a better understanding of rationality. The difference between humans and animals is as obvious as that. There’s no need to define the difference any further. Just agree that humans are rational “in a unique way” and move on with your discussion of why people are ensouled by God.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This doesn’t alter my point however.

I fear it does. Some of Genesis is a little confused, especially when it comes to the wives of the various sons, and grandsons, of Adam, and the Nephilim, but I think the thrust of the story is that Adam and Eve were the exclusive first parents, and that there were no others. The fact that several ‘cities’ were begun when there was almost nobody to live in them is not unsurprising, given the hundreds of years people were supposed to have lived, and the hundreds of children they could easily have had.

 

[goout]

Does my BA in Anthropology and MA in Theology tick enough boxes to post about the intersection of science and theology?

I would imagine so.
?
I didn’t direct my post to you. I simply think it would be a good idea if everyone who talks about the Church’s position on Genesis/evolution/creation/human body-soul knows what the Church says about it.
Wes’ post made a clear point in that regard.

The Church’s teaching on what constitutes a human being is continually lost or misapplied in these discussions. (Not directed at you personally)

 

[goout]

Another debate doubting the difference between the rationality of humans and the instincts of animals.
Truly amazing that this happens post-enlightenment.

 

[Dovekin]

Pope Pius XII is very clear on the factual propositions that under lie the doctrine of original sin. There can only have been two parents of all of the human race now existing. No person alive could have a first human ancestor that is not Adam or Eve.

This is the issue as it was originally stated. It has developed into a discussion of possible nonhuman ancestors, ie do we have ancestors other than Adam and Eve? Were they human (or rational)? The human/animal dichotomy you proposed simply dismisses the topic without resolving anything.

If Adam and Eve are the parents of all living humans, are all of a modern man’s ancestors ‘children of Adam’? Or are there also other ancestors who were not ‘children of Adam’?

Pius XII was relying on the idea that original sin is propagated by physical processes, not imitation. This requires only that Adam and Eve are ancestors of every human, not that there are no other ancestors. The point of only in “only two parents” is that all are descended physically, not that there are no other parents.

Genesis has signs that there were other parents. The wives of Seth and his brothers. The Nephilim are children of the sons of God (=not Adam) and the daughters of Eve. The Flood story functions as the bottleneck where the other lines died out. All modern humans are “children of Adam” through Noah. The idea that some humans are better than others, Hamites are better than Semites, is dismissed because all are children of Adam and Eve. Monogenism is more important than any polygenism that comes after we became human.

 

[Allyson]

I figured, hence the

I have also noticed that there seems to be some fudging of terms, and hopefully this evening I can summarize what I see as the definitions of the Church and contrast with what we now know about animal and human intelligences.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Flood story functions as the bottleneck where the other lines died out.

Are you saying Bigfoot isn’t real? Cause I’ve devoted thousands of hours in watching YouTube videos about him.

Pius XII was relying on the idea that original sin is propagated by physical processes

Yes, it’s all about defending the doctrine of origin sin. I’m pretty sure Pope Pius knew that the flood was an allegory, and that there was no literal ‘worldwide’ flood.

But apparently he felt a threat to the doctrine of original sin, and so defended it by using the Adam and Eve story.

 

[Gorgias]

But why then are we looking for a definition? Wasn’t it to decide what posesses rationality?

The problem is that we haven’t reached a definition.

In fact, all we’ve done is to attempt to back into a definition by pointing to human behavior and say “yep … that’s rationality at work!”

(Moreover, it seems that your assertion of animal rationality is merely the result of observing animal behavior, recognizing surface correspondences with human behavior, and concluding “if it’s rationality in me, it must be rationality in Fido!”)

If you are of the opinion that nothing except man posesses it then it seems a fool’s errand.

Personally, I think this question itself is an unhelpful tangent. We’re not talking about rationality – we’re talking about immortal human souls. “Rationality” doesn’t help us get there.

But it’s obvious that animals don’t have discussions about rationality which serve to feed a better understanding of rationality.

Clearly, you’re mistaken. I see them having those discussions in Disney movies all the time.

Just agree that humans are rational “in a unique way” and move on with your discussion of why people are ensouled by God.