A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
1419

Thanks, Antoine, for making perfectly clear to me your position on what you consider was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be considered truly human while also filling the role of Christ as humanity’s Savior. Your position is certainly more orthodox (Roman Catholic) than mine, since I can see the New Testament as inspired even though its authors did not have the knowledge to consider the possibility of intelligent life on other planets which may have body forms differing from ours.

It seems to me that this statement tries to use Biblical passages to support scientific theories rather than the other way around. I agree with Jay Gould’s premise that evolution is NOT repeatable–e.g. if we could reset the clock back to the Jurassic, reptile evolution would not produce a humming bird. Reptiles might have developed feather-like appendages (as insulation?) that later enabled flight which proved useful to fill an environmental niche. I believe this is called ‘convergent evolution’. Thus bats evolved membranes for flight rather than feathers.

I hope you will agree that such scientific knowledge, while interesting, is not vital to living a life pleasing to our Creator.
Al Leo

1420

Notice that what we call “scientific theories” are descriptions of reality on the basis of the ordinary observations we HUMANS perform. This means that necessarily “scientific theories” assume as an axiom that HUMANITY is the ultimate aim of the evolving universe.

Accordingly, evolution as a “scientific theory” is necessarily REPEATABLE with relation to the end result of bringing about the OBSERVERS. But it is not necessarily repeatable regarding intermediate steps, as Gould suggests.

Absolutely!

What I am stating is that evolution without relation to the happiness of humanity is meaningless.

Accordingly, you have the alternative:

Meaningful Evolution:
Jesus-Christ, Deus-Homo , “the exact representation of his [God’s] being” (Hebrews 1:3) and “the first born of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), is “sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3). In this way (by means of highly complex ecological regulation) God brings about distinct species, and at a certain moment makes Homo sapiens to “humankind in the image of God” (Genesis 9:3-6). Since this moment Homo sapiens :

  • defines the body Deus-Homo (Jesus Christ) will have in history;

  • forms the people of God’s children, called to form one body in Christ (Romans 12:5) and become Deus-Homo at the end of time (in line with Teilhard’s proposal for an “Omega Point”).

Meaningless Evolution
“Nothing” is sustaining evolution. It is evolution itself that produces “God”, the new species “ Homo Deus” that supersedes Sapiens. Homo Deus is an ocean of algorithms in which each of us becomes processed as a bunch of data. This is the new proposed religion of “Dataism” to which we will be forced to adhere by giving up our personal identity. Harari has the merit of making plain the sad “tomorrow” we are heading toward by dismissing Deus-Homo, the incarnated God.

In whichever way you look at it, if you want “living a life pleasing to our Creator” it would be better acknowledging “meaningful evolution”!

1421

Hi Antoine,

The delay on finishing your article in the OP is still in effect. Perhaps will get to it before the end of the year.

Just to clarify: “meaningful evolution” the way you define it is a non-scientific expression, topic, and question, is that correct? Iow, for people to perceive “meaningful evolution”, it must occur “within” a religious worldview. At the same time, “meaningless evolution” signifies a “scientistic” view about “natural history”, rather than a religious one, yes?

Iow, since an atheist would not agree with your definition of “meaningful evolution”, this is instead how you are suggesting religious believers, specifically Christians, should interpret natural history. Is it right?

1422

The fact that the Vatican has come to embrace the idea of evolution–even deeming it "meaningful"–is extremely important to me. During my years in parochial school (the 1930’s) we were taught that we were put on earth as a sort of ‘testing ground’; i.e., to see if we were worthy of admission to Heaven, our true home. We were to think of our earthly life as an “exile”, rather than the opportunity to become as nearly like our Creator as possible. For me at least, meaningful evolution puts a different perspective on the Scriptural story of the Fall of Adam. & Eve and Original Sin.
Al Leo

2 Likes
1423

I try to clarify outgoing from the following question:

Which living creatures are referred to by the term “humankind in the image of God” appearing in Genesis (1:26-27; 5:1-2; 9:6)?

Answering this question is crucial for people believing that “the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God”.

Undoubtedly, we acknowledge that Homo sapiens today is “humankind in the image of God”. The same holds for Homo sapiens at the time of Jesus Christ, and also at the time when Genesis was written (about 2,500 BP).

But how far back in evolutionary history can we go on equating “humankind in the image of God” to Homo sapiens ? Iow, at which time did Homo sapiens become “humankind in the image of God”?.

I call “meaningful evolution” a logically consistent explanation that answers this question on the basis of

  • the available data about when the species became as distinct as they were at the time of Jesus and are today,

  • and evidence documenting accountability relationship.

So “meaningful evolution” is both, a scientific and a religious worldview.

What you call a “scientist” view is always implicitly a “religious worldview” as well: Homo Deus is a paramount example of this! Harari acknowledges that humankind longs for bliss, immortality, and divinity. Homo Deus as evolved Homo sapiens is the response evolution gives to this longing. If you don’t want an evolution originated in, sustained by, and aiming to Deus-Homo (“meaningful evolution”) you end by invoking an evolution that produces the godlike species Homo Deus, an algorithmic Leviathan in which godlike elites will reduce us to a bunch of data and process us as they wish.

Notice also that Richard Dawkins’ arguments are conspicuously heavy on theological content and implications!

Paraphrasing @mitchellmckain I would like to state: There is no sharp black and white line between scientific and religious worldviews!

I am very interested in your comments in order to progress discussing the “Transmission” question.

1424

You are perfectly in line with what Pope Benedict XVI tells us in his homily at the Aosta Cathedral, on July 24, 2009:

“The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.”

“Meaningful evolution” means that evolution aims to form humanity as the people of God’s children, called to enter a parent-child relationship with God, and become Deus-Homo (“one body in Christ”) at the end of time.

I think Christy has very well expressed the same idea in another thread:

If one accepts that the Son of God became human flesh, the speculation that humankind or part of them can “devolve” into a species that is not image of God is preposterous.

1425

Thank you, Antoine, for passing on the quotation from Benedict XVI. I’ve always always connected with Teilhard’s idea that the Omega Point was the destination, a ‘true comic liturgy’, that evolution was directed towards. So, what in Teilhard’s teaching is currently keeping the Vatican from fully embracing him–for clearly admitting its earlier error in putting his writings on the Index for forbidden books? Does this fall under the dogma of Infallibility similar to what our current president espouses?

I also missed Christy’s post on ferral humans; e.g. children raised by wolves or apes. The most believable case (e.i. one not conflated with idiocy) is cited in encyclopedia Britannica:
a boy found near Hanover in 1725. Peter the Wild Boy—as the famous physician John Arbuthnot named him—became a fascination of the English royalty, living for the next few years with both King George I and the Prince of Wales. Like earlier children found in the wilderness, Peter’s unbreakable silence and unique ability to survive much as an animal would

I believe the most important thing to note here is that Peter no longer had the ability to acquire a language. This inability (or extreme difficulty) is a common thread amongst the most believable stories of ‘wild children’. None of us is “truly human” until we have had at least a minimal teaching by other humans. In previous posts I have cited the case of Helen Keller and the Miracle Worker, Anne Sullivan, as demonstrating the crucial role that language and the ability to communicate abstract thoughts plays in defining ‘true’ humanity. I’m surprised that at least a few contributors to this Forum have not expanded on the evidence of this particular case.
Al Leo

1426

In any case, the first “truly human” (”Adam”) was “truly human” without having had a minimal teaching by other humans.

As a matter of fact, Peter the Wild Boy could immediately and unambiguously be acknowledged as a human boy as he was found in the wilderness, because of his human body, and King George I is to praise for having cared about him.

In my view, Peter the Wild Boy was “truly human” in the image of God from the very beginning of his life, in the woods and thereafter in London, because he had a human body, even if “he no longer had the ability to acquire a language.” The way King George and the Princess of Wales Caroline took an interest in Peter’s welfare backs this view.

1427

I disagree, Antoine, because in this case I think the evidence from archaeology and anthropology, while not completly definitive, is still more compelling than what you derive from Scripture.

(1) The premise that A-dam, the first truly human, had NO human-like ancestors is NOT supported by science–only by a literal interpretation of Genesis, or else by your conclusion that God ‘directed’ evolution to produce a primate with certain physical characteristics that clearly distinguished them from others in th primate line.
(2) My premise rests on the well supported evidence that, beginning with Australopithicenes, their brains began to evolve with unusual rapidity–an exaptation. As with modern humans, infants are born with far more cerebral nerve connections than prove useful in early life, and only the connections that DO get used survive. “Use it or lose it”
(3) Over a period of three million years, the climate and geology throughout Africa changed in ways to offer a variety of niches that encouraged or discouraged primate life. This offered many different ‘life experiences’ to the ground dwelling primates–more than those living in protective jungles (such as the orang-utans and apes.) Facing more decision making, they preserved more cerebral connections, and as adults, could pass this on (via mimicry) to their offspring as an advantage to survival. Thus we see an (almost) steady progress from Homo erectus–Homo heidelbergensis–Homo Neanderthals–Homo sapiens. As you pointed out, the last species in the above line eliminated its predecessors, OR mated with them.

I can agree with your quotation above IF we insert the word POTENTIAL in a couple of places:
“Peter the Wild Boy Had the POTENTIAL to become the image of God from the very beginning…”
But that potential was unfulfilled when, from lack of human contact, “he no longer had the ability to acquire a language.”
respectfully,
Al Leo

P.S. Like all other stories of ‘Feral Children’, there is no evidence of Peter’s experiences between his birth and his discovery 'in the woods.

1428

Gregory, I think you are making here some important points:

Like you, I maintain that any religious faith sharing Genesis:1-11 is necessarily covenantal, that is, originates from God’s will to establish a special relationship with humanity, as it is explicitly revealed by the declaration that “God made humankind in the image of God”.

This faith cannot be considered as evolved through “pressure of bonding” but rather the other way around: Covenantal communities have been and are able to bond in more enduring, resilient, and larger groups than animistic or secular communities, as Dunbar himself seems to acknowledge.

This said, I think the available data back Robin Dunbar’s claim that animism and shamanism preceded the Biblical Faith. The Bible itself attests the presence of non-monotheistic religiosity in the peoples around Israel.

So the important question arises of whether or not the creatures sharing animistic and shamanic forms of religiosity in the time before God’s covenant with humanity, can be considered to share in this covenantal relationship and “be in the image of God”.

I would like to propose the following explanation:

Animism and shamanism are certainly beliefs enhancing cohesiveness in communities of hunters&gatherers before God’s covenant referred to in Genesis 9:3-6, however such beliefs cannot be considered forms of religion based on God’s will to make humankind in the image of God .

By contrast people showing animistic and shamanic beliefs after Genesis 9:3-6 fully share in God’s covenantal relationship.

In fact, indigenous people today often also share moral principles equivalent to the basic rule of morality and law formulated in Genesis 9:3-6, and even the 10 Commandments. This can be considered evidence that Genesis 9:3-6 means the revelation of a covenantal relationship between God and humankind, and a universal archetype of morality God engraves in the collective conscious and unconscious of humanity, that is, in each human person coming into existence after this covenant proclamation: After Genesis 9:3-6 the status of “being in the image of God” holds for all human beings, be they ‘in-the-Garden’ or “outside-the-Garden”.

The covenant of Genesis 9:3-6 is the basis of the Jewish and Christian view of humankind and the human person and, at the same time, the very foundation of the Rule of Law, on which the liberal constitutional state and democracy are built. Interestingly this is explicitly acknowledged by Yuval Harari in the conclusion of Chapter 12 of his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind . Sadly and mistakenly Harari suggests that the Foundation of Law will disappear with the arrival of the new “species” Life Science and AI are producing: Homo Deus.

Thanks in advance for commenting.

1429

Thanks for your kind words and gentle provocation Antoine. Let me try a brief volley back to you. Forgive me if this misses the mark of what you’re now considering.

Yes, covenantal, but more than only that also. Here I would suggest you return to what GJDS recommended to you above, in exploring the divine energies, as viewed in St. Gregory of Palamas, and at the Fifth Council of Constantinople. To this I would also add McLuhan, as a still contemporary Catholic thinker, who in fact completes in a different way what Teilhard started with his “noosphere” in the notion that we live in a “global village”. This enabled also thinking along the lines of Francis Heylighen in Belgium, later with the “global brain”, drawing on earlier ideas involving “cybernetics”. And it allows you to withdraw from contemporary “secular thinking” further by going to the ATM – Aristotle, Thomas, McLuhan, which completes the Four Causes with the Four Effects, and requires grappling with the so-called “laws of media”, an entirely different approach to “homo communicans” than traveling a “homo sapiens” route with biologists.

“I think the available data back Robin Dunbar’s claim that animism and shamanism preceded the Biblical Faith.”

Specifically, it seems, from a “secular historical” perspective, which curiously you seem willing to adopt, as Teilhard also did. Here I do not see that the Roman Catholic contribution has moved forward yet beyond Teilhard’s fissure, nor that the dangers of it have been made apparent beyond a thin slice of pro-Teilhardian contemporary Catholics.

Dunbar + Harari as “secular” role models (if they aren’t then who are yours instead?) from a person’s “theological anthropology” is bound for Catholic failure and likely eventual censor. Same goes for Jared Diamond. That’s (sometimes quasi-) “scientific anthropology”, not “theological anthropology” or “Biblical anthropology”.

“the important question arises of whether or not the creatures sharing animistic and shamanic forms of religiosity in the time before God’s covenant with humanity, can be considered to share in this covenantal relationship and “be in the image of God”.”

No, I disagree. That’s the wrong end of the rope to start with.

“people showing animistic and shamanic beliefs after Genesis 9:3-6 fully share in God’s covenantal relationship.”

This seems to flip your reference point (foreground/background) around a single passage in Scripture as history. Yet there is another interpretation available, which curiously now exists as a parallel to this one, whose “alternative” to what it seems you are suggesting, is given in the title framed as a question: “Genesis: History of the Semitic Peoples or Not?” (Genesis: History of the Semitic Peoples or Not?) Thus, you seem to be looking “outside of Scripture” to fit a story into Scripture regarding non-Semitic peoples?

“indigenous people today often also share moral principles equivalent to the basic rule of morality and law formulated in Genesis 9:3-6, and even the 10 Commandments. This can be considered evidence that Genesis 9:3-6 means the revelation of a covenantal relationship between God and humankind, and a universal archetype of morality God engraves in the collective conscious and unconscious of humanity, that is, in each human person coming into existence after this covenant proclamation: After Genesis 9:3-6 the status of “being in the image of God” holds for all human beings, be they ‘in-the-Garden’ or “outside-the-Garden”.”

Where I live (Canada), this is quite sensitive, but also not as underdeveloped a topic as people who have little contact with Indigenous peoples seem to realise. Not a few Indigenous Canadians have converted to Christianity since contact with the European “settlers”, which remains strong among some of Canada’s First Nations, while others have maintained their pre-contact religious traditions and resisted Christian encroachment.

Is it a marriage of “origin stories” across cultures that you’re looking for in that exchange, Antoine, rather than either a genetic explanation or genealogical hypothesis? This would seem to be a different starting point that the one you are taking with quantum transmission of “original sin” (in contrast with “ancestral sin”), but please forgive my abstract culture thinking innuendo of another possible language & framework of engagement if it sounds too “postmodern” for you. (It actually manages not to slide into ideologically “postmodernist” at its core.)

As for the notion of “collective conscious and unconscious of humanity”, it makes sense in the shadow of “secular sociology” (e.g. Durkheim’s “collective consciousness”) and “evolutionary psychology” (pick your poison), which I would caution stringently to avoid as much as possible. I would be curious to hear more of your anthropology references from the Catholic perspectives now available. Agustin Fuentes so far sounds worrisome in quite a different way than Teilhard was. Who else are you drawing on for your philosophical and theological anthropology that buffers against the “religiously agnostic anthropology” of Harari, Diamond, Pinker, Harris, Boyd & Richerson, Tooby & Cosmides, De Waal, Cavalli-Sforza, et al.?

You’re not after all convinced by “cliodynamics” are you? https://www.sott.net/article/161508-Transforming-history-into-science-Arise-cliodynamics

Jesuit-educated, ex-Catholic Steve Fuller’s review of Harari’s book provides a curious interpretation

Thanks for your provocative engagement.

1430

I fully agree with this claim!

My view is the following:

God endowed the first human persons in the image of God with the capability to master the selfish Darwinian mechanisms. This is the state of Original Righteousness or Justice before the first sin (the Fall), where according to the Greek Father St. Irenaeus of Lyons “[man] was free and self-controlled”.

After the first transgression, all human persons come into existence lacking the Original Righteousness Adam was created with. The so called “state of Original Sin” consist in this lack of the capabilities to master the selfish evolutionary tendencies. Because of this lack we humans come into existence with bad tendencies: “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

The state of “Original Sin” should rather be understood as a state of “need of Redemption”: We need to be redeemed by Jesus Christ’s grace.

1431

“to master the selfish Darwinian mechanisms … to master the selfish evolutionary tendencies.”

Who says ‘evolutionary tendencies’ are ultimately selfish, Antoine? Is this just the ‘Darwinian’ view, or is it also from folks like Huxley, Rockefeller, Dawkins, Dennett & Barach in their view of ‘evolutionary tendencies’ too, like the later part of the title to OoS - “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”?

That variety of ‘evolution’ clearly differs from the Kessler-Kropotkin version of ‘evolution by mutual aid’ (or “mutual aid as a factor in evolution”, 1903) that you seem to be focusing on, Antoine, does it not? It would thus be surprising if you chose either ‘selfish’ or ‘Darwinian’ to describe your views of “the science” of evolution, as that would seem then to require unseating altruism for the privilege of egoism on the human-social level. This is why Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ has faced such pushback, even while he’s tried to explain why Darwin’s (plus Malthus & Hobbes) ideas don’t work on the human-social level.

1432

Evolution does certainly involve empathy, altruism, and glorious aspects as for instance love, gestation, and parental care. On the other hand, selective pressure leads also to infanticide in different species. In particular, male lions kill young cubs of other males to the aim of impregnating the females. Chimps, males but also females, and orangutans can engage in murder and infanticide as part of adaptive reproductive strategies. In bonobos, and also chimps, the sexual drive enhances a high degree of promiscuity.

Such “selfish” mechanisms were also present in the evolved Homo sapiens creatures at the moment God made them into human beings in the image of God.

My claim is the following:

  • a) God endowed these primeval humans in the image of God with the virtue of love, the sense of moral responsibility, and awareness of accountability.

  • b) Additionally, God imbued them with the capability to master the push to murder, sexual promiscuity, rob, and cheating, in order they were absolutely free to love God and each other, without being impaired by selfish evolutionary mechanisms.

This was the state of Original Righteousness.

After the Fall (i.e.: the first deliberate transgression in human history):

  1. God allowed the sinners to remain on earth to have opportunity to atone, being redeemed, and reach salvation.

  2. However, to facilitate repenting and asking for forgiveness, God considered it convenient that not only the sinners but all humans on earth lack the capability referred to in b) above.

This is the state of “Original Sin”, which should better be called the state of Need of Redemption.

1433

“The first truly human” cannot be defined by biological means alone.

For me “the first truly human” (“Adam”) is the first human being God made in the image of God by endowing a Homo sapiens creature with the virtue of love, the sense of moral responsibility, and awareness of accountability.

This “first truly human” had many “human-like” ancestors, but NO “truly human” ancestor.

I fully agree with what you state here.

My claim is simply that all these creatures living before the moment “God made humankind in the image of God” were not “truly human” in the sense defined above.

As you know, I allege that God created the first human being in the image of God (the first “truly human”) later than 12,000 BP and not later than 5,300 BP.
This claim and your claims above fit each other.

Interestingly, Robin Dunbar in this article proposes a view of the evolution of religion that combines the social brain hypothesis with the neurobiology of social bonding. Dunbar concludes that: “Doctrinal (or world) religions, as we know them, seem to date only from the Neolithic, even though the cognitive capacities that are necessary for modern religions (mentalising and language) long predate this.”

This supports what I state regarding the start of the Biblical Religion at the moment of the universal Revelation referred to in Genesis 9:3-6, and also what you state regarding the steady evolution of the cognitive capacities.

Dunbar also claims that doctrinal religions containing “religiously justified moral codes” were preceded by animistic forms of religiosity. Accordingly, burials like that of Sungir, or cave paintings, can be considered evidence for animistic or shamanistic (immersive) forms of religiosity, rather than signs of a biblical religion based on the Covenant between God and Adam, and the Covenant between God and Noah.

As I have claimed in other posts, the Covenant reported in Genesis 9:3-6 has a universal meaning, i.e.: it means that since this very moment all Homo sapiens on earth became “truly humans in the image of God”. We acknowledge native and indigenous peoples today as “truly humans in the image of God” because “they are human like we are”, that is, Homo sapiens living at the time after the declaration in Genesis 9:3-6, and not because their animistic practices. Colonization history is highly eloquent in this respect!

1434

Actually, Antoine, based on what anthropology I am familiar with, I do NOT believe that NO “truly human” existed before 12,000 BP. But I think you will agree that this difference in our worldviews is totally irrelevant to how each of us lives our lives in hopes that we fulfill God’s purpose.

Long before 12,000 BP there were millions of Homo sapiens living in the Far East, Australia and the New World. Some of these ‘peoples’ had visions of a Great Spirit that predated ‘Doctrinal religions’. I do not agree with Robin Dunbar that this proves that they lacked the cognitive capacity (mentalizing and language) to do so. Some, like the Aztects, were heathens; i.e. worshiping a cruel, vengeful god, and I commend the Christian missionaries for coverting them. It may seem impossible to claim that an Aztec priest cutting out the beating heart of a captive prisoner still has the potential to become an Image of his Creator. But I do. Is that so much different than what some modern Christians believe about the Heaven God rules?

JONATHAN EDWARDS
The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss. [“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

As witnessed by some posts on this Forum, this concept is alive well into the 21st century.
Al Leo

1435

Since the end of the year is approaching I would like to suggest you start by commenting on my recent post on the “Transmission” question, where the essential is said. I summarize it again:

I wish you and all contributors to this thread very Happy Christmas days and a New Year plenty of success!

1436

The interest of Dunbar’s explanation is that it raises the following two highly relevant questions:

  1. Where the Homo sapiens creatures sharing animistic practices before God’s universal Covenant with humankind (Genesis 9:3-6) human beings in the Image of God?

  2. Are the Homo sapiens creatures sharing animistic practices after God’s universal Covenant with humankind (Genesis 9:3-6) human beings in the Image of God?

My answers:

To Question 1: NO.

God had not yet made Homo sapiens to “humankind in the Image of God”, accountable toward him, and called to become God in Jesus Christ and reach eternal life.

To Question 2: YES

Even the Aztec priests you refer to were in the Image of God, although they dishonored this Image.

Only those who prefer “going to hell” lose this Image once they enter there. In fact hell consists in freely renouncing to become God in Jesus Christ.

Yes!
At the end of the day, the only relevant thing is that:

when the saints go marching in
we hopefully will be part of this number.

Happy New Year to you and all the contributors to this thread!

1437

Is that what you meant? If so, please elaborate. I will admit to not thoroughly reading this lengthy thread, but I’m curious as to the background of that statement, because at face value, I find it problematic.

1438

Many thanks Dale for your request.
I will elaborate on my statement with pleasure.
To do this fittingly I would like to know why it sounds problematic to you.
All the best for the New Year!