Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted

  • Thread starter Thread starter hecd2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continuation

To summarise the natural science case, taken on its own, the DRB1 data absolutely precludes the possibility of a bottleneck of two individuals in the human ancestry. Taken as a body, all the evidence is overwhelming. There is no molecular support for the literal Adam and Eve hypothesis and a great deal that is opposed to it. The palaeontological evidence does not support the sudden appearance of human faculties. A reasonable unbiased person will conclude that humans do not descend from two sole parents in any generation and that therefore the Adam and Eve story cannot be literally true.

I said before and I’ll repeat it here: *To prove me wrong, all you have to do is to cite a reference to a paper which sets out the reasoning for considering a bottleneck of two as a possibility. *I doubt that you’ll be able to find even one such paper.

In passing, I note that it is possible to be a thinking practising Catholic and to reach my conclusion that a literal Adam and Eve never existed, and so your arguments from Catholic philosophy do not convince all Catholics, even though they certainly accede to the philosophical concepts such as a spiritual domain, the existence of an spiritual and immortal soul and the doctrine of Original Sin. You might want to consider how these highly intelligent and thoughtful people reconcile what you believe to irreconcilable.

Let’s turn to your arguments now.

to be continued
 
The philosophical arguments are flawed

You have made a persistent case that, regardless of whatever the natural evidence shows, we can know by philosophical reasoning that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed.
A summary of your argument might go like this (I apologise in advance, and I am sure you will correct me, if I inadvertently misrepresent you in any way)
  • We know by philosophical proofs that God exists and that therefore He can create Adam
  • There exists a real spiritual dimension unconnected to the material world
  • Man is fundamentally different from other animals in possessing a spiritual and immortal soul, which we know through considering the substance of being (the substantial form) and how man’s faculties compare with other living things
  • Since man’s soul is different in kind from that of other animals, it cannot have arisen gradually, but must have been acquired at one instant
  • Only God can have created man’s soul
  • The Catholic Church is validated by miracles; the Church teaches that God created man’s soul once, in a special event described in Genesis 1 and 2: God initially created just two true humans Adam and Eve (in other words, you reject the infusion of souls into a population of humans; a proposition which would otherwise seem to satisfy some of both the biological and the philosophical considerations, but obviously not a biblical exegesis that demands a literal Adam and Eve)
  • You further believe, although I don’t think that it is part of your argument, that in creating the first man by infusing the material body of a hominin with a spiritual soul, God created undetectable physical changes in his material body.

    Although, the philosophical proofs for God’s existence are all lame, I can grant the possibility of God’s existence and still show that you have no warrant for the other points of your argument. (I note in passing that in your defence of Aquinas’s First Way, you have been forced entirely to dissociate it from its roots in Aristotlean physics and metaphysics, in short to dissociate it from a foundation in sense experience; if we are to follow your program, the First Way is mere fantastic speculation ungrounded in any true thing that we can perceive about the world; but if we are to follow Aquinas’s own program, we would attempt to ground it and explain it in observations of the world, only to run aground on his, and Aristotle’s, misconceptions about the world.)

    So we turn to your claims about the existence of a spiritual dimension and about how consideration of philosophical species indicates that a substantial form exists, separate from any material form and sovereign over it, and which determines our intellect and free will, and provides us with personal immortality. This is a very pretty concept, but there is not an iota of evidence in support of any of it. As I have pointed out several times, if we shed all of our preconceptions and our desires for the world to be as we would like it to be, we must conclude that none of these beliefs is warranted. First, the evidence for human faculties is quite unequivocal: no human faculty exists that does not depend on neural activity. No human faculty exists that cannot be affected by physical effects. No human faculty of self-consciousness or consciousness of the external world or abstract thought or speech or reasoning or prayer or poetry or music or morality or free will exists in the absence of a physical brain. Everything that we regard as personally us, our opinions, beliefs, loves, desires, temptations, personality, character, intelligence, integrity, sense of right and wrong and sense of self, and above all our memory, depend on continuing normal neurobiology and can be affected or fundamentally undermined by physical effects. In short, the action of a physical brain is necessary for and fundamentally underpins our intellect, our will and our consciousness. It might have been possible to reasonably think otherwise 200 or 300 years ago, but it is not so now. Since a material brain is necessary for that which you associate with a soul, then the only logical conclusion must be that the immortal soul does not exist (because these capacities vanish forever when the brain is destroyed), or that if it does, it does not correlate with anything that we would normally consider to be part of the personhood of an individual which depends on that person’s specific neural network.
to be continued
*
 
Continuation

So, a physical brain is necessary for all of the human intellectual attributes, but is it sufficient? Do we also need something else, some sort of actualising principle that determines our intellectual abilities and, in particular, those that we associate with spiritual, abstract and aesthetic thought – in short, in addition to a brain and neural activity, do we also need a spiritual soul? Well, it seems not. Just as chemical processes are natural epiphenomena of physical laws and constants, and life is a natural epiphenomenon of chemistry, so it seems that the human intellect is a natural epiphenomenon of neurobiological processes. While no one will claim that the hard problems of consciousness or free will have been solved, there is no reason to think that they are insoluble or that we need to look outside natural explanations. Human volition is often used as an example of a faculty that lies beyond material explanation – that the consciousness that I have that I decide to raise my arm, just prior or at the time of raising it, needs more than the firing of some neurons in the motor cortex to explain it. While not yet a full explanation of volition or free will, neurobiologists are homing in on these questions (and others associated with sense of self, qualia, and religious beliefs). See for example, Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009).

It is important to understand that in making these points, I am not denying the existence of, or the importance of, what we call a spiritual dimension to human consciousness. I am, however, pointing out that the overwhelming evidence is that these experiences (and other specifically human intellectual activities) arise through the action of matter, specifically through neurobiological processes. You misrepresent the case when you claim that we are either a spiritual entity with an immortal soul that is the substantial form of our humanity or that we are “merely” a pile of atoms with a name. It is a form of false dichotomy common amongst theists to imply that material explanations are fundamentally reductionist – the “merely” fallacy. Of course an individual is more than a pile of atoms with a name – she is a real entity with a conscious sense of self, of others and of the external world, and the capacity for happiness and suffering – but all of these things arise from and depend on the matter and energy that make her up.

You talk about the soul, the actualising principle of human life, being that which defines humans and makes the nature of a human stable, whether he is a baby, a genius, the victim of Alzheimer’s, asleep or in a coma or under the influence of alcohol. Well, I agree with you that humans are all human under these conditions, and worthy of the dignity that such a state entails, but it is not by the existence of an immortal soul that we know this nor is it the soul that stabilises the state. What does so is that these individuals are all members of the human species (as opposed to the chimpanzee or giraffe or cod or oak or Streptomyces species). What makes a human state is defined on a biological species basis. If I present you with a living thing that you have never before seen, and ask you to tell me if it is human, your conclusion will be based on considerations that are no different from answering the question “is this a member of the biological species Homo sapiens?” To base your answer on the existence or otherwise of an immortal spiritual soul in the individual is to lead to incoherence as you cannot reliably perceive such a thing in these cases. Your assumption that it is present is based entirely on that which you can perceive – and that is to which biological species the individual belongs.

Given these considerations, and the overwhelming evidence that humans are primates who share a common ancestor with chimpanzees (who, by the way, show many of our cognitive abilities, admittedly in a much less developed form – see any work by, for example, Frans de Waal), the only reasonable conclusion is that human cognition evolved gradually along with our anatomical and physiological attributes (and are in some cases correlated with them). Although human cognition is very complex and advanced compared with that of all other animals, it does not arise from a different foundation, nor is it of such a fundamentally different nature that it requires a miracle to install it in a pair of MSA individuals.

Finally, even if we were to grant that the human soul does exist as a real non-material entity, and that God infuses each human with a soul, there is no reason to hold that He did so originally in just one couple, rather than in an entire population, other than the literal exegesis of the chapters of a book that cannot reasonably be read literally in the first place. Indeed, I believe that Catholic theology is beginning to come to grips with such an alternative reading, interpreting the “first humans” as a population, and Original Sin as the loss of innocence and predilection for wrong-doing of a species developing morality – but for that you will have to turn to others.

to be continued
 
Continuation

You conclude: *“Thus, for Christians, belief in a literal Adam and Eve is warranted in the sense (1) that it does not violate their general philosophical worldview, (2) that that worldview is not inconsistent with what we know of primate and human development over time, and (3) that the arguments for the human spiritual nature necessarily imply some first true human being, whom we call Adam.”

*I grant step 1), but I have shown that step 2) is not remotely tenable, and that step 3) is fallacious in the sense that the arguments for the special human nature might imply a “first true human”, but that the arguments themselves are flawed and so the inference to which they tend is invalidated. We can therefore conclude that a belief in a literal Adam and Eve by the standards of a well and broadly educated person, whether Catholic or not, is **not **warranted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
StAnastasia said:
Nor is it theologically necessary.
Click to expand...
I have not read Alec’s posts which I am confident are well thought out and documented. Nor am I in a position to critique those posts robustly in the light of the posts of Dr. Bonnette’s or discuss other scientific ideas regarding two parents of the human race. That time will come eventually. Nonetheless, as the current discussion continues, I am sure I will be asking questions…

I am in the position to comment that from the Catholic perspective of Divine Revelation, it is necessary to believe that there were two parents of the human race.
It is my understanding that theology is human’s way of understanding God. LOL Regardless of the brilliant thinking of eminent theologians, Divine Revelation trumps.

Furthermore, belief in the spiritual world does not depend on acceptance by science. Nor does the spiritual world disappear when it is ignored. Divine Revelation trumps.

What is it that is really being said when it appears that scientific investigation disproves Divine Revelation? The only thing that is being said is that currently science is being limited to the natural world. Divine Revelation belongs to the spiritual world which exists on its own.

Unfortunately, I could only watch the first part of “Ida” on the History Channel. The first thing I noticed was that the younger scientist, not from the U.S. was comfortable with limitations. Perhaps understanding limitations would be a good thing for all scientists. Perhaps then, acceptance of something beyond the limitations of science would be easier.

I have always accepted the fact that it is a personal choice to practice a religion or not. It is a personal choice to believe in God and to believe that a spiritual world exists with and beyond the natural world. And when it comes to humans, the spiritual and natural form the whole person. Yet, there is a serious risk to one’s sanity to believe in the spiritual. Science, as the only explanation for life’s questions, has a very loud commanding voice. At one point, it scared me into misery. Then I remembered that Divine Revelation trumps.😃

Blessings,
granny

Bible means – basic instructions before leaving earth
 
StAnastasia said:
Nor is it theologically necessary.
Click to expand...
Uh… yeah it is. Belief in a real Adam and Eve (regardless of the further details) is a part of infallible Catholic doctrine, since it is necessary for the doctrine of Original sin. Few things in the faith are more clearly defined than this fact.
grannymh said:
I am in the position to comment that from the Catholic perspective of Divine Revelation, it is necessary to believe that there were two parents of the human race.
It is my understanding that theology is human’s way of understanding God. LOL Regardless of the brilliant thinking of eminent theologians, Divine Revelation trumps
Click to expand...
👍
 
masterjedi747 said:
Uh… yeah it is. Belief in a real Adam and Eve (regardless of the further details) is a part of infallible Catholic doctrine, since it is necessary for the doctrine of Original sin. Few things in the faith are more clearly defined than this fact.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. The Augustinian model of Original Sin, depending on a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, is one theological model, but not the only one.
 
StAnastasia said:
The Augustinian model of Original Sin, depending on a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, is one theological model, but not the only one.
Click to expand...
The “Augustinian” model is the only option for Catholics. I’m sorry, I don’t know what else to tell you, because it’s simply not open for debate. (And I rather suspect that there must be serious flaws in any other “theological model” you might come up with.)

And just to be clear, a “literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story” is not strictly required, but simply a belief in literal Adam and Eve, regardless of what we say about the other details of the story.
Council of Trent:
  1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own – is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ… let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
404. How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?
…the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam has received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.
By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve commited a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state [Council of Trent, Session V]. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

406. …The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

417. 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.”

419. “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16].
Click to expand...
Ludwig Ott said:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De Fide)
Click to expand...
Humani Generis:
  1. …that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Click to expand...
Catholic Answers Forums Apologists
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=129186
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=98
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp (scroll down to “Adam and Eve: Real People”)

…how many more documents do you need to see, honestly?
 
masterjedi747 said:
The “Augustinian” model is the only option for Catholics. I’m sorry, I don’t know what else to tell you, because it’s simply not open for debate. (And I rather suspect that there must be serious flaws in any other “theological model” you might come up with.)And just to be clear, a “literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story” is not strictly required, but simply a belief in literal Adam and Eve, regardless of what we say about the other details of the story.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not the only option, and I don’t need to see any documents. But I will ask Ken Miller how he handles the Adam and Eve question. As a Catholic and a biologist, he will no doubt recognize the genetic impossibility of the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair. I’ll get back to you with his answer.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
No, it’s not. The Augustinian model of Original Sin, depending on a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, is one theological model, but not the only one.
Click to expand...
This is beginning to sound like – All grass is green but not all green things are grass.

All individual theologians can contribute theological models, but not all theological models are verified as Divine Revelation by the Church. 🤷
 
StAnastasia said:
No, it’s not the only option, and I don’t need to see any documents. But I will ask Ken Miller how he handles the Adam and Eve question. As a Catholic and a biologist, he will no doubt recognize the genetic impossibility of the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair. I’ll get back to you with his answer.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Genomic evidence is not the only fish in the sea.
 
grannymh said:
Genomic evidence is not the only fish in the sea.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Th alter your metaphor, genetics and genomics are part of the larger puzzle, which includes geology, paleontology, biogeography, biochemistry, physical anthropology, etc.
 
StAnastasia said:
Of course not. Th alter your metaphor, genetics and genomics are part of the larger puzzle, which includes geology, paleontology, biogeography, biochemistry, physical anthropology, etc.
Click to expand...
Sorry Granny – I meant “to alter”
 
StAnastasia said:
No, it’s not the only option, and I don’t need to see any documents.
Click to expand...
Well, it is, and apparently you do. 🙂
StAnastasia said:
But I will ask Ken Miller how he handles the Adam and Eve question.
I’ll get back to you with his answer.
Click to expand...
Please go ahead. I have e-mailed him before, and it is likely that he’ll get back to you.
StAnastasia said:
As a Catholic and a biologist, he will no doubt recognize the genetic impossibility of the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair.

…genetics and genomics are part of the larger puzzle, which includes geology, paleontology, biogeography, biochemistry, physical anthropology, etc.
Click to expand...
Ken Miller might give you correct Catholic teaching on this matter, but he might not.

Regardless, you don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter what Ken Miller or any other biologists say in regard to this question, because this is ultimately a question of our faith that the Church has already spoken out on and settled. I’m sorry if that’s difficult for you, but I don’t see why it should be.

And no, I not going to claim that I know how it is possible – but, as a Catholic, I do know that it undoubtedly happened, and so it’s obviously possible somehow. Rossum’s proposal comes to mind, for starters… I’d be grateful if you ran that one by Ken Miller too, if you get a chance. And yes, worst case scenario is that God was somehow directly involved in keeping the genetics sorted out, and that it was a miraculous start for the human race… AND YES of course that solution is not ideal. But fortunately I don’t think the issue has come to that, although strictly speaking we have to acknowledge that could have happened.

Can you honestly explain to me why this is such a difficult issue for you? I honestly don’t understand.
 
grannymh said:
Genomic evidence is not the only fish in the sea.
Click to expand...
Granny, I’m hoping to hear back from Ken today (I need to talk with him on another matter anyway). I’ll see what his take is on the Adam and Eve story in light of genetic science. I spoke with a theologian colleague at the university yesterday, and she was nonplussed with my question about whether Adam and Eve were literal individuals, as that has not come up as a serious topic.

To diffuse fear on the part of Young Earth Creationists, perhaps we should note that Catholic scientists and theologians would (I hope) never forbid the faithful to speak in terms of a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, Noah’s Flood. None of these topics were raised during the conference in Rome, but all the Catholic participants listened a few weeks later to some of these wonderful stories during the Easter Vigil.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, I’m hoping to hear back from Ken today (I need to talk with him on another matter anyway). I’ll see what his take is on the Adam and Eve story in light of genetic science. I spoke with a theologian colleague at the university yesterday, and she was nonplussed with my question about whether Adam and Eve were literal individuals, as that has not come up as a serious topic.

To diffuse fear on the part of Young Earth Creationists, perhaps we should note that Catholic scientists and theologians would (I hope) never forbid the faithful to speak in terms of a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, Noah’s Flood. None of these topics were raised during the conference in Rome, but all the Catholic participants listened a few weeks later to some of these wonderful stories during the Easter Vigil.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
“The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists”

…QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top