Adam and Eve, Continued

Let's continue with the discussion I started in yesterday's post.

We are considering whether it is reasonable to persist in believing in the reality of Adam and Eve given the findings of modern science. The problem is that the Bible seems clear that at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve were the only human beings on the planet. But genetic analyses contradict this, pointing instead to the conclusion that the human population has never dipped below two thousand, at an absolute minimum.

There are two broad strategies for avoiding this conflict: Deny the genetic evidence or deny that Adam and Eve were the only two humans at the time of their creation. Dennis Bonnette takes the first approach in this article for Crisis magazine, and that is what we discussed yesterday. He made a number of claims about the genetic evidence that I suspect are dubious, but which I lack the expertise to refute. I did, however, offer the more general objection that in the light of evolution, it becomes pointless to talk about the precise moment when a particular species came into existence (just as it is pointless to talk about the precise moment when a person changes from being a child to being an adult.) A world with precisely two representatives of species Homo sapiens, one male and one female, is not one that makes sense within the evolutionary picture of the world.

Bonnette, however, also offers a rebuke to those who prefer the second route:

Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of God’s plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).

The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human race's very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.

Obviously I demur from some of this. Basing your argument on natural law is effectively equivalent to just making it up, and marriage as a social institution simply has no essential connection to child-raising. That aside, as a criticism of Kemp's argument this works rather well.

If you are unfamiliar with it, Kemp's idea is to imagine some ancient population of hominids. In form and even behavior they might appear to be human, but in reality they are not, since they lack souls. God then chose two of these hominids to receive the gift of ensoulment, thereby making it possible for them to achieve true rationality and enter into a relationship with God. They were the first true humans. So, Adam and Eve were the first humans, but they were not the first hominids. God kept track of their offspring, we go on to suppose, bequeathing souls to the products of their interbreeding with the other hominids.

Now, back in 2011 we spent some time discussing this proposal. Edward Feser defended it. I then criticized it. Feser then replied. I then further responded in two posts: Part One and Part Two. Feser wrote a subsequent post explaining his view of original sin.

Feser has now revived this issue, in a discussion of Bonnette's article. He responds to Bonnette thusly:

It doesn't seem that the “bestiality” issue per se is really the heart of Prof. Bonnette's objection, though. His point seems instead to be that a “union” of a true human being with a sub-rational creature of the sort in question would be dysfunctional vis-a-vis the proper rearing of truly human children. This is true, but it is hard to see how it is a problem for the Flynn-Kemp scenario, for nothing in that scenario requires that such “unions” be anywhere close to optimal from a child-rearing point of view, or even that there be “unions” (of some long-term sort) in the first place. All that it requires is that there was enough interbreeding to account for the genetic evidence appealed to by contemporary biologists. It isn’t clear how the question of whether, how, and to what extent the sub-rational creatures were involved in child-rearing affects the judgment that there was sufficient interbreeding.

Perhaps Bonnette thinks that child-rearing would have been so deficient that the population of true humans could not have survived long enough to displace the sub-rational creatures. But it is hard to see why. Surely the child of a “union” between a true human being and one of the sub-rational creatures would have an advantage over the offspring of two sub-rational creatures, for such a child would itself have rationality and at least one rational parent, whereas the other sort of offspring would have neither. Moreover, we needn't think in terms of such pairings in the first place. Why not think instead of a scenario where a truly human male forms a union with a truly human female but also has several sub-rational but genetically and physiologically “human” females as concubines, where the resulting children are all essentially reared by the human couple? And such arrangements need only have occurred frequently enough for the truly human population to supplant the population of sub-rational creatures. There is no need to flesh out the Flynn-Kemp scenario in the specific way Bonnette (apparently) does.

Prior to this, Feser gave a lengthy explanation of why sexual relations between ensouled humans and non-ensouled hominid animals should not be regarded as bestiality. He opens with this:

Back in 2011, when Flynn, Kemp, and I first wrote on this topic and the Flynn-Kemp proposal was getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere, some people objected that interbreeding of the sort in question amounted to bestiality. But of course, no one is suggesting that we should approve of the interbreeding in question. The claim is merely that in fact it may have happened, even if this was contrary to natural and divine law (just as Cain killed Abel even though this was contrary to the natural law, and just as Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, even though this was contrary to divine law).

As I read Bonnette, however, this is not so much a refutation of his argument as it is a concession to it. According to the view being defended by Kemp and Feser, God brought about the origins of humanity in such a way as to guarantee immoral sexual relations between humans and animals, and to create an environment that is not good for children. This seems like an odd way for God to have ordered things. A simple alternative would have been to grant souls to a whole population of hominids. Why would God, having decided to enter into a deeper relationship with some of His creatures, only grant souls to a single, original couple? Especially given the inevitability of grotesque sexual immorality by proceeding in such a manner?

This is just one reason why the Kemp/Feser story is implausible. I gave some others in my original posts. But now add to this the fact that Scripture does not at all support their view. In addition to the verses I already mentioned, we might wonder about the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:7-18 says:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

This makes it sound like Adam was created, and then removed from his earlier environs and placed in a different location. He is described as being alone, and as being needed to maintain the land. This all suggests there were no other hominids around. Nor can we reasonably argue that being “alone in the Garden of Eden” is symbolic language for the idea of being the only soul-bearer among a population of animals. The verses above relate the physical location of Eden to familiar landmarks of the time. What are we to make of these verses, given the Kemp/Feser view?

The view being defended by Kemp and Feser is implausible on its face and is not at all supported by Scripture. In fact, at several key points it seems to be flatly contradicted by Scripture. So what is the reason for believing it? Where is the evidence that it is correct? Kemp provides none in his journal article, and Feser has yet to provide any in his various posts on this subject. It's all just armchair philosophy.

All of which brings me back to the point with which I started yesterday's post. Reconciling science and religion in a satisfying way requires more than tossing off logically possible scenarios. Those scenarios have to at least be plausible, and some concrete reason must be given for thinking they are correct. I say this because all such scenarios must compete with an obvious alternative scenario.

Perhaps Adam and Eve were just fictional characters. Perhaps the story, despite its obvious literary value, simply has no historical relevance at all. There is a conflict between the story and modern science because it was written entirely by ancient human writers who were in no way divinely inspired. Even for the most devout person this possibility must always be there in the background.

Which is more likely, that the story is just an ancient myth or that its author was right about the reality of Adam and Eve but nothing else?

Categories

More like this

Personally I believe there is truths in the bible although it should not be taken literally. We cannot rely on any texts from the bible anymore than we can harry potter! If we find 5 copies of the same story it means nothing more than it was a popular story there could have been 1000s made, we don't know! Basically I would suggest the bible is an amalgamation of many stories told throughout pre-history a main character was created jesus who was related to famous kings of the day (to gain favor?) Jesus was used as a binder for all these stories!

By nigel hill (not verified) on 21 Dec 2014 #permalink

The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human race’s very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life.

See, I find this bit absolutely hilarious for at least two reasons.

1) Bonnette claims here that it would violate "natural law" and disrupt the functioning of the family if children were not raised by a human mother and father. He says this one sentence after admitting that, under his scenario, Adam and Eve's children and grandchildren would have to reproduce with each other. So, what, a century-long carnival of incest is consistent with natural law and good family values, but single parenting isn't?

2) Even assuming that interbreeding with subhumans would cause "serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children," how on earth is this a problem if you're defending the Biblical account(s) of creation? According to Genesis, those early people were all kinds of fucked up! Cain murdered Abel! Lamech killed people right and left! Fallen angels were seducing women! Everyone somehow ended up pagan! God had to flood the whole world because humanity was so evil! I think we might need some bestiality and deadbeat ape parents to account for all this terrible behavior.

If you are unfamiliar with it, Kemp’s idea is to imagine some ancient population of hominids. In form and even behavior they might appear to be human, but in reality they are not, since they lack souls.

Interestingly, Bonnette simply ignores a crucial part of this idea; his hypothetical "subhuman primates" do not appear human in their behavior. Bonnette's "natural law" argument relies on the premise that a subhuman would have a significantly different parenting style from an ensouled human.

By Anton Mates (not verified) on 22 Dec 2014 #permalink

God then chose two of these hominids to receive the gift of ensoulment, thereby making it possible for them to achieve true rationality and enter into a relationship with God.

If we take the A&E story literally, then surely the ensoulment must have come as a result of eating the forbidden fruit. Or, at least that's how I read it.

As an early teen, my pastor urged me to read the Bible. So I did in two concurrent tracks starting at Genesis and at Matthew. When I got to the A&E story, it seemed obvious that this was meant to be a story. It was of the same genre as Aesop's fables. It only made sense as a kind of pseudo-explanation of why humans were different from other animals. And eating the forbidden fruit was where the important change occurred. So that had to be the moment of metaphorical ensoulment.

By Neil Rickert (not verified) on 22 Dec 2014 #permalink

In form and even behavior they might appear to be human, but in reality they are not, since they lack souls.

I think this is how many theists would define atheists. Not fully human - cannot experience transcendence, no relationship with gods, etc.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 22 Dec 2014 #permalink

What is so great about Christianity is that if you follow the NT genealogy, Jesus would never have existed if it weren't for incest and adultery. Not to mention Queen Esther winning a sex contest. You gotta love a hero of the faith like her...as Jesus said - 'go and do likewise.'

This all doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

First, the "Adam and Eve were the only humans" part comes only from Genesis 2. Genesis 1 doesn't give that sort of scenario and instead just speaks of God creating "Man". So it could easily be argued that those are two creation accounts written by two different authors at two different times. That allows for at least the possibility of "Adam and Eve" being a later add-on to the original Hebrew creation story, and the original being God creating mankind, rather than just two individuals.

But even if we go with the Adam and Eve part, and adopt the apologetic that they merely represented the first two hominins to get souls, while in the midst of a larger population, that doesn't mean they were the ONLY ones to be given souls by God. Within seconds of God breathing a soul in to Adam and Eve, God could have just as easily breathed souls into all the other members of the species. That takes care of the "bestiality" problem.

That's the thing about miracles in mythology. Once you allow one, you can have as many as needed.

The necessity of a historical Adam and Eve doesn't actually arise from Genesis, but from Paul, who in Romans taught that death entered the world with Adam's sin, which isn't entirely consistent with Genesis (since God worries that the humans will become immortal, hence godlike, if they go on to eat from the tree of life).

The issue is original sin, which makes no sense without a founding couple.

"Which is more likely, that the story is just an ancient myth or that its author was right about the reality of Adam and Eve but nothing else?"

I think that sums it up well. The underlying problem is that neither of the two competing religious views is motivated by respect for rationality and evidence. Instead they are motivated by a desire to save the truth of a biblical passage at any cost. That deprives the debate of any significant rational value, and makes it like the proverbial case of arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

By Richard Wein (not verified) on 23 Dec 2014 #permalink

The real issue for me is how men are genetically related to Hobbits. This was not made entirely clear in the Silmarillion. Who cares about a fictional work like Genesis.

"Reconciling science and religion in a satisfying way requires more than tossing off logically possible scenarios."

In claiming that you "don’t like blanket statements to the effect that science and religion are incompatible", aren't they incompatible at the fundamental level of religion assuming its conclusions and then finding or twisting evidence to fit? Can't we conclusively say that they are methodologically incompatible, without exception?

@Barry -- they are methodologically incmopatible, yes -- but not always and everywhere.

The problem is that the whole assumption about reconciling science and religion s based on the idea that you're going to use them to do the same thing. You're not.

Fun intellectual exercise as it is, the issue of reconciliation isn't a matter of whether one makes different accounts fit. It's a lot more complicated than that.

As exhibit A I give you Isaac Newton. He was a mystic. He was a beliver in numerology, and in patterns encoded in the Bible. It was that very belief in patterns that allowed him to come up with calculus. Had he looked at the universe stochastically he never could have done it. His idea that there had to be an underlying logic expressed as the will of God was (I think) instrumental in his being able to conceive of such a thing at all. His method for divining the laws of gravity was about as far from empirical as you could get. The empiricism was only tacked on later. (Read Principia and you'll get the idea).

Now one might argue that Newton wasn't trying to come up with a theory in the modern sense, and you'd be (sort of) right. But that is rather my point. The methods of science and religion can't be as neatly divided as we like to think, not always.

@Jesse: according to Gleick's biography of Newton, Newton checked thousands of astronomical observations against his theories of gravitation and motion to confirm them. This is not "tacking on" empiricism. This is straight science: generate hypotheses and test them vs. empirical observation. Looking for patterns is exactly what evolution has programmed our brains to do. This often leads to false positives, such as religion. In other words, I think you have it backwards: looking for patterns is not the result of religious thinking, religious thinking is the result of looking for patterns (and finding false ones - no shame in that - and clinging to them in the face of contradictory empirical evidence - something which even Newton and Einstein were guilty of, along with probably everyone else at some time).

@Jesse: I don't think Newton supports your pov. Not only does JimV explain this better than I could, but for your point to answer mine you would have to explain how Newton practicing theology would have led to those discoveries. Sure, we can all criticize pioneer scientists over their methodology (which often involved some incredible luck and good fortune), but they were also early pioneers in that methodology.

I think my point still stands.

His point seems instead to be that a “union” of a true human being with a sub-rational creature of the sort in question would be dysfunctional vis-a-vis the proper rearing of truly human children.

Hold on, hold on. This argument requires that 'soul' be linked to 'sentience' or 'rationality,' which is a big problem in a number of ways (for the conservative religious proponent). I am frankly amazed that they would be defending such a link. It's shooting themselves in the political foot.

1. Zygotes are sub-rational. That's putting it lightly. The quoted argument above basically kicks the chair out from underneath the religious basis of the pro-life position.
2. Many humans with brain damage or genetic defects may also have significantly sub-normal rationality.
3. Many animals show many of the traits and signs of at least partial self-awareness. Maybe not all the traits all at once, but some of them some of the time. Which - see #1 and #2 above - is also the case for many humans.

"Rational sentience = soul" sounds superficially good because it will neatly separate normal humans adults from many animals. But there are many edge cases amongst both human and non-humans that are going to make it a very uncomfortable criteria for religious folk to assert, and one which is highly vulnerable to reductio (because it is, in part, absurd).

Michael Fugate,

“I think this is how many theists would define atheists. Not fully human – cannot experience transcendence, no relationship with gods, etc.”

Sortof, but in Christianity, the not fully human part is a matter of completeness. In fast and raw theological terms, Adam was created as a trichotomous being; body, soul and spirit. He lost the last element in the fall. All of his descendants inherit this broken status, which is restored in the born again deal.

There are those who are offended by this inheritance; the offense of one man resulting in general condemnation. But the beauty is in the flip side; the sacrifice of one impeccable man resulting in general atonement.

===

eric,

“This argument requires that ‘soul’ be linked to ‘sentience’ or ‘rationality,’ “

That link is only activated at a normal level of comprehension and volition. Up and until this point, which varies from person to person, general atonement is the rule. In other words, you have to be capable of making a choice to lose.

@15
“the sacrifice of one impeccable man resulting in general atonement.”

I find the whole concept of a suffering Jesus laughable. I am not referring here to patri-passionism, but the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death was a trivial meritless event and nothing to be admired. In your mythology, Jesus is both man and god. He knew he was god and he knew when he died, he would arise again in three days. If you could die, knowing that you would come back in three days and in so doing, would make it possible for humans to escape eternal punishment in a fiery hell, would you not do it? Of course, you would. Doing otherwise would be unethical.

More to be admired are those like Bruno and Vanini who died for their beliefs knowing that this is the only life they would ever have.

When the gospel story was first presented to the Chinese by the Jesuits, they laughed thinking that it was a humorous story. You see, the event is a Roman ludibrium (a ludibrium was a priapic rite of ritualized indecency designed to elicit laughter) that was inverted, as all Jewish stories are, to turn a tragedy into a triumph. Think of the servile torture of crucifixion reserved for the man claiming to be God, the flagellation, the inscription ‘Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum’, the purple robe, the royal crown made of thorns, the reed as scepter, the shaming nudity and the final killing with ridicule.

Phil:

you have to be capable of making a choice to lose.

Did God choose to make 'making the wrong choice' send people to hell, or was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?

Pedr,

“I find the whole concept of a suffering Jesus laughable. I am not referring here to patri-passionism, but the idea that Jesus’ sacrificial death was a trivial meritless event and nothing to be admired.”

But that’s not a novel perception. Natural men have a natural mindset, and for them the whole affair is nonsense. This issue is addressed in 1 Corinthians 1:18-26, 2:14

“You see, the event is a Roman ludibrium (a ludibrium was a priapic rite of ritualized indecency designed to elicit laughter) that was inverted, as all Jewish stories are, to turn a tragedy into a triumph.”

I’ve heard something like this before. Are you saying that the Gospel accounts are somewhat accurate, and the joke went over everyone’s head? Or was it a shrewd political conspiracy?

Also, I can see the tragedy/triumph deal is the records of people like Samson, and perhaps Gideon to a lesser degree. But I think ‘all Jewish stories’ is a little reckless. There are lots of bad outcomes, some still in the works.

===

eric,

“Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell, or was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

Eric, stuff like that is way over my head, and past my level of interest. I already have more information than I can digest. That’s like asking if the central dogma is the only way life could exist.

This issue is addressed in 1 Corinthians 1:18-26, 2:14

Another instance of the bible preaching the bliss of ignorance (cf. the tree of knowledge and Lot's wife).

By Walt Jones (not verified) on 30 Dec 2014 #permalink

@18

Phil,
I think you missed my point. Anyone who was what Christian theology says Jesus is ( both man & god ) would have done what he did. To do otherwise, would be unethical. To die know that you will bring yourself back fully restored to life in 3 days is not really that amazing if you are god ( I and the father are one, etc ). THAT is what makes it un-amazing. I am going by the plain sense of the words. There is no extra-spiritual juice needed to grasp that simple concept. Believers and unbelievers can understand the plain sense of words...otherwise, why write it all down in the first place.

Natural men have a natural mindset, and for them the whole affair is nonsense.

Oh, of course. You need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Until then, you just don't get it. It's the theological equivalent of an adolescent stamping his/her foot and exclaiming, "You don't understand!" Yeah, we do.

“Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell, or was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

Eric, stuff like that is way over my head, and past my level of interest. I already have more information than I can digest. That’s like asking if the central dogma is the only way life could exist.

The single most important issue in Christian theology - to many (arguably most) Christians the point of the entire melodrama - and it's beyond your "level of interest"?

I wish Jason, our gracious host, and all those who frequent his site a very happy and prosperous new year. We'll pick some of this up in 2015.

[eric]“Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell, or was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

[phil] Eric, stuff like that is way over my head, and past my level of interest.

You are not interested in whether your own statements of belief might imply an evil or incompetent God? You are not interested in the question of what your religion says about who gets saved and who doesn't? As cipher says, that latter is one of the most important questions religion claims to answer. People have gone to war and died over it.

I think what you might mean is that you want to punt on it: you don't see a good answer to these questions but you want to have faith that there must be one.

Pedr,

“I think you missed my point. Anyone who was what Christian theology says Jesus is ( both man & god ) would have done what he did.”

I understood your point. But again, I don’t see the novelty of it in view of “for this cause came I…”. The willingness issue is addressed in Romans 5:7-9

But I didn’t understand the reference to a Roman ludibrium. If, as you say, the event was a game of sorts, then someone was behind it. Who was that?

Also, I just disagree with the accuracy and scope of your statement about Jewish stories.

===

cipher,

“…you just don’t get it….Yeah, we do.”

It isn’t about technical comprehension. It is the necessity of atonement that is perceived as nonsense.

===

eric,

“You are not interested in whether your own statements of belief might imply an evil or incompetent God?”

I’m interested in the accuracy of my statements, but not the implications.
-
“You are not interested in the question of what your religion says about who gets saved and who doesn’t?”

Well yeah, but you posed two questions:

“Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell?”
“was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

These are just expressing that you don’t approve. They don’t have anything to do with who gets saved and who doesn’t.

It isn’t about technical comprehension. It is the necessity of atonement that is perceived as nonsense.

I understand that. I am familiar with the position and the arguments underlying it. I find them preposterous. They are designed to safeguard your collective belief system, and nothing more.

These are just expressing that you don’t approve. They don’t have anything to do with who gets saved and who doesn’t.

Yeah, this tells me all I need to know. I don't come here very often, and I'm certainly done here for the time being.

By cipher (not verified) on 01 Jan 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

cipher,

"I am familiar with the position and the arguments underlying it. I find them preposterous."

That was the point.

Cipher, that's the comfort of religion: you don't have to think about the implications of, or reasons for, the things you're told to believe and do, you just need to believe and do them and all is good. If that means tossing out the findings of a vast amount of science without studying it (as Phil demonstrates) because nothing in the real world supports your faith, then so be it.

I’m interested in the accuracy of my statements, but not the implications.

Wow.

“Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell?”
“was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

These are just expressing that you don’t approve. They don’t have anything to do with who gets saved and who doesn’t.

They are not expressions of my disapproval, they are sincere questions. Did he set up the go-to-hell system or not? Does he actively maintain it, by his choice, or is he unable to change it? I believe that various theologians have come down on both sides of that issue (the 'hell is the absence of God' school going with the no choice option, more fire and brimstone school going with the 'yeah he does it, and I don't see the problem with it' option).

And the question has everything to do with who gets saved. If God has control over who goes to hell and He lets nonbelievers go to heaven, then that's enormously different than a system in which he has no control or has control and sends them to hell. The answer to this question says a lot of very important things about the sort of God you are talking about.

eric,

“They are not expressions of my disapproval, they are sincere questions.”

Not to trivialize your interest, but everything knowable about God, hell, salvation, etc. is recorded in a unique, artifactual book. If you reject that, then you would reject any answer that comes from that source. Sincerity aside, your questions are more ontological than theological.
-
“I believe that various theologians have come down on both sides of that issue (‘hell is the absence of God’ school…fire and brimstone school).”

There are literalists, and all the others. The others have to reject the literal text, come up with something else, and produce a rationale for their substitution. The reasoning usually boils down to the fact that they just don’t like the literal interpretation.
-
“And the question has everything to do with who gets saved.”

No, those are not policy questions. The issue of who gets saved and who does not is a simple inquiry with straight-forward answers.

Talking to people like this is always a waste of time. They think they're the "elect". In reality, they are narcissists and psychopaths. The causal way in which they discuss eternal damnation, as evidenced here, is a textbook example and is a manifestation of a subcultural trait.

There is a growing body of experimental data that is strongly suggestive of a neurological foundation for ideological orientation in general, fundamentalism and authoritarianism in particular. It isn't yet conclusive, but it's heading strongly in that direction and it's where my money lies. I've suspected it for decades.

People who leave the conservative Christian subculture don't like to hear this. They want desperately to believe the family and friends they left behind will one day get out as well, and they tend to reject the idea that it isn't merely a matter of early childhood programming: "If I got out, they can." I tell them they've won the genetic lottery. Most will never leave; it's who they are born to be.

This is the reason I usually won't even speak to conservative Christians. Nothing is to be gained. It's merely an exercise in futility.

By cipher (not verified) on 02 Jan 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

*casual* way

Phil:

Not to trivialize your interest, but everything knowable about God, hell, salvation, etc. is recorded in a unique, artifactual book.

So then it should be easy for you to just answer the question. Did God choose to make ‘making the wrong choice’ send people to hell, or was he incapable of giving us the choice to believe without hell as a possible outcome?”

I do not understand why you're being so obtuse about this. You say everything knowable about salvation is in the book. You are a better study of this book than I am. So tell me what (you think) it says about that question.

eric,

"So then it should be easy for you to just answer the question.”

Well no, it isn’t easy for me, and I told you that it was over my head the first time you asked. You aren’t asking about the terms of the contract. You want to know why those are the terms. I can't answer that.

Eric, the fact that the "terms of the contract" don't bother him is your answer.

It is a subculture of psychopaths.

You want to know why those are the terms. I can’t answer that.

I am asking who made the terms. Was it God or was he not in control of the terms that were set? [Shades of Euthyphro...]

Also, you said everything knowable about salvation is in the book. So there are only two options here:
(1) You are saying you haven't studied the book enough to know the answer.
(2) You are saying you have studied it, the answer isn't in there, this must be an "unknowable thing" about salvation, and therefore anyone else claiming to have the answer (all those theologians and other believers I talked about a few posts back) are spouting BS.

Which is it?

Or a third option, Phili, God is beyond human understanding, yet you know that eric's understanding is wrong. (How?)

By Walt Jones (not verified) on 02 Jan 2015 #permalink

eric,

I would go with option 2, noting that your questions are impertinent to salvation. If you would like to cite specific theologians and their views, please include the references they use to draw their conclusions.

cipher - "causal" worked surprisingly well there.

By Walt Jones (not verified) on 02 Jan 2015 #permalink

Well Phil, you remind me of Humpty Dumpty. You want words to mean what only you want them to mean and don't seem to be able to grasp the gist of arguments so I am signing off.

"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Well shoot Pedr. I really wanted to hear more about that ludibrium.

But I sort of figured you were gonna be short on evidence for that, especially after following up on the sources you provided to that led you to conclude that there was no Exodus. Remember the Dever book? I did a lot of reading about him, and it turns out that he is not well-liked by the Debbie Wasserman Shultz wing of archaeology. He’s in his 80’s now. You might enjoy reading this: http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/deverb.htm

Also, he spoke at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary back in 2010. (One of the other authors you referred to is a professor there, and he didn’t seem to think that the conclusions you drew were warranted). Here’s a quote from Dever’s lecture:

“ “Don’t ever apologize for your faith, or for the Bible, or for the Western tradition, or for being an American. Fight, and make sure you have the facts on your side.” “

Here’s the article:
https://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/william-g-deaver-on-sol…

All things considered, I think I’d be careful with that ludibrium idea. Truth is a very narrow and limited thing, and you can read all kinds of things, especially now when deception and illusion are the norm. Remember what Muggeridge said: “We have educated ourselves into imbecility”.

We have educated ourselves into imbecility”.

You, Phil, are the perfect embodiment of that quote.

We all have to decide things for ourselves Dean. If you're comfortable with the idea that your ability to read this began with particles arriving from outer space billions of years ago, then your education has followed a different tack than mine.

your education has followed a different tack than mine

And that's why we fight to keep creationism out of schools.

(When did the discussion of panspermia come up? In the other thread?)

By Walt Jones (not verified) on 04 Jan 2015 #permalink

Phil you don't seem to have been educated as much as indoctrinated. You are good at denialism and incapable of critical thought.

Walt Jones,

“(When did the discussion of panspermia come up? In the other thread?)”

No, that’s another subject. Panspermia, at least directed panspermia, is about the deliberate deposition of life on earth by some extraterrestrial civilization. This idea has been entertained by various scientists, including Shklovskii and Sagan way back in 1966. In 1973, Crick and Orgel wrote about the possibility:

“Abstract
It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.”

The panspermia idea has fallen out of fashion, apparently because it is somehow associated with idiocy. There are newer and numerous origins of life hypotheses available to maintain that association.

One of the ideas is that a few of the 20 amino acids found in biological life arrived here accidentally on meteorites, and managed to converge with the the amino acids not represented in the meteorites, which might have been produced by thermal interfaces at deep-sea vents or perhaps volcanoes. At some point, all D-enantiomers were eliminated in a process not well understood, at all.

NASA funds current studies on the various meteorites and new discoveries:

“The team believes the majority of the amino acids they found in the 14 meteorites were truly created in space, and not the result of contamination from terrestrial life, for a few reasons. First, the amino acids in life (and in contamination from industrial products) are frequently linked together in long chains, either as proteins in biology or polymers in industrial products. Most of the amino the amino acids discovered in the new research were not bound up in proteins or polymers. In addition, the most abundant amino acids found in biology are those that are found in proteins, but such "proteinogenic" amino acids represent only a small percentage of the amino acids found in the meteorites. Finally, the team analyzed a sample of ice taken from underneath one of the meteorites. This ice had only trace levels of amino acids suggesting the meteorites are relatively pristine.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

Phil:

noting that your questions are impertinent to salvation

I am okay being called impertinent. Though maybe you meant irrelevant?

The panspermia idea has fallen out of fashion, apparently because it is somehow associated with idiocy.

Well first, I don't think it was ever 'in fashion' if by that you mean a leading explanatory contender. It is an interesting idea that many scientists have considered, but I doubt very much that there has ever been a time (including back in the '60s) when a majority or large plurality of scientists considered it a contending theory for the OOL.

Second, if you throw your hypothesis/idea out into the scientific community, and then nobody finds evidence supporting it for 50+ years while others find lots of evidence that seems to support another hypothesis, then yeah, your idea is going to fall out of whatever favor it might originally have had. In this case, since the 1960s we've learned a lot more about how basic organic compounds can form the building blocks of life - self-replicating polymers, how liposomes and micells can form without intelligent intervention, and so on. So many of the explanatory loose ends panspermia might have tied up, have been tied up by standard evolutionary science. We've also explored more of our solar system and looked at surrounding solar systems in more detail (since the 1960s), and we don't find any evidence for relatively local aliens. So yeah, its fallen out of whatever favor it might have had (which IMO, wasn't much to begin with). But for good reasons.

Phil: I read your comment @42 as saying that panspermia (I'm using the term in the inclusive sense) had been discussed and I missed it, a more charitable interpretation than assuming that you would use a strawman to make your false dichotomy appear stronger.

By Walt Jones (not verified) on 05 Jan 2015 #permalink

To argue how Adam and Eve came into the picture other than some special creation event (miracle) is absurd if one actually believes or wants to believe that they were the first couple. If the Bible is unworthy to describe the formation of the couple it certainly cannot be trusted to introduce the first couple so if they were a miraculous creation then they weren't at all....! As to scientific ability to use genetic information to point to the first humans, it must be understood that the use of the y chromosome or the mitochondrial DNA to determine the beginning of the human race depends on neutral mutation rates which have been shown repeatedly to be much faster than is assumed in the scientific literature. Much of the published data relies on the assumption of our relationship to the other apes as a starting point for our own genetic changes. This insures that the mutation rates of the human being are skewed to much greater ages than are inherently arrived at based upon the mutation rates of human genetics alone. So, it comes down to faith only. Faith that the Bible means what it says and we can have some semblance of reasonable use of it in determining the age of humanity or faith in unproven darwinian assumptions which guarantee the Bible is a fallacious work. Make up your own mind.

By Daniel Moran (not verified) on 05 Jan 2015 #permalink

As to scientific ability to use genetic information to point to the first humans, it must be understood that the use of the y chromosome or the mitochondrial DNA to determine the beginning of the human race

That's not what evolutionary studies have tried to find and its not what the problem (for creationists) is. It's that genetic evidence points to (a) no 2-person bottleneck at all, ever and (b) no female and male last common ancestors living contemporaneously (again: ever, at all).

of the published data relies on the assumption of our relationship to the other apes as a starting point for our own genetic changes.

Its not an assumption, its a conclusion based on the evidence of genetic similarity. Had the story turned out differently we would've accepted that humans were most recently related to something else.

This insures that the mutation rates of the human being are skewed to much greater ages than are inherently arrived at based upon the mutation rates of human genetics alone.

What's your source for rapid human mutation fixation rates?

How does a mutation rate skew to an age?

A mutation maybe, but not a rate.

Which makes more sense, that a unique mutation shared by a gorilla, a chimpanzee, a bonobo, and a human occurred in the common ancestor of all four or arose independently in each lineage?

If you can trace mutations through the human population based on common ancestry - we know genetic material is passed on from ancestor to descendent - why not through all living things?

Evolution is not faith-based, but evidence based - it is the only answer that makes even the least bit of sense given the data.

How the hell do you know the Bible means what it says?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 05 Jan 2015 #permalink