Gregory’s complaints appear to be largely semantic and/or etymological and thus uninteresting to me, but that may merely be the result of my lack of interest in the doings of imaginary beings and the interpretation of jumbled ancient writings. I do think that he has taken the discussion away from Prof Venema’s goal in writing on genetics and its abuses by religious apologists.
But perhaps I am correct in divining that Gregory is attempting to get Prof Venema to address one particular “theological” question, concerning whether one standard role for Adam (original sinner) is part of Prof Venema’s thought. I gather (but could be wrong) that this is what the believers in this forum mean by “theological monogenism.” And I know that the answer to this question is of some consequence to believers.
I too am curious about what Prof Venema thinks about this, simply because I know that he has extensive genetic knowledge and is therefore in a bit of a conundrum. If “original sin” is stuff that is inherited by virtue of being “human,” then it must be somehow linked to what it means to be “human.” Believers can always convert this to a “theological” discussion by introducing phantasms and/or immaterial modes of inheritance. (That’s the only solution, IMO.) The views of Prof Venema and other BioLogos leaders on this pivotal question are of understandable interest to everyone.
However, to be fair to Prof Venema, the context here is the vigorous (desperate?) attempts of apologists to anchor the question in genetics (broadly speaking, and meaning physical modes of inheritance). These attempts are uniformly inaccurate and misleading, and BioLogos’ efforts to combat them are more important to science than most of my colleagues currently understand.
Original sin is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is regarding good and evil as fact in stead of opinion.
The sinner understands choosing as sorting out the best result using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. A coldhearted calculating person.
The innocent understands choosing as the human spirit making a possibility which is in the future, the present or not. A person with a spontaneous spirit. The existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, and the good and evil is attributed to the spirit, thereby making good and evil into a matter of opinion.
Gregory, you imply Dennis is ungracious because of his use of the word “apologist”, and then go on to write an aggressive, arrogant, belittling series of comments in response. I think there’s a biblical verse or two about that kind of behavior…
You say you don’t want to think about Dennis’ technical arguments. That’s sad. Dennis goes out of his way to make these technical arguments simple enough for you to follow, if you wanted to. How else can you judge the strength of the arguments on either side, if you are unwilling to hear them?
Would you be so condescending about these arguments if the subject were anything other than biology? If physicists explained in detail why the sun could not have stood still during a battle, or why there could never have been a universal flood, or that the earth is billions of years old, would you listen to their arguments?
Or maybe you would just say you already know the answers to those questions, independent of the evidence. If the latter, then there is no point in discussing evidence at all.
Perhaps “original sin stuff” is the selfish genes we inherit as Homo sapiens. Then Gen. 2 describes the Original Blessing our ancestors received when they acquired a conscience and the free will to either remain enslaved to their selfish genes or rise above them.
Al Leo
Yes, exactly. Anyone who denies evolution, and anyone who thinks evolution was miraculously guided to produce humans, must explain why it is that the evidence all looks exactly as if humans evolved by unguided evolution? If a god made humans by some other means, why would he arrange things so as to cover his tracks?
I don’t know what you mean by “selfish genes,” but my point is that any attempt to locate human-ness or sin or god-images in the genome, combined with any attempt to suggest that such things can be traced to a single person or couple, is an invitation to science (specifically population/evolutionary genetics) to test that “hypothesis.” I think you should stick with phantasms.
I too find Gregory’s responses to be ungracious and pedantic. But it seems fair to give Dr. Craig a bit more credit for being a scholar. He might be a rubbish philosopher, but he’s a philosopher. Shall we just grant that point?
Dawkins coined the phrase “selfish genes” in his first best selling book with that title. It is not strictly scientific, but it is useful. Certainly the urge to pass on one’s genes to the next generation does make animals (including us) often do things most religions deem evil. I have quoted several respected anthropologists’ views on this matter, but here are some others that may convince you that these ideas are not 'phantasms;.
Ian Tattersall in his book “Becoming Human” states: “Truly a new kind
of being was on earth”. And further: “Modern Homo sapiens is a totally
unprecedented entity, not simply an improved version of its ancestors.”
Also: “How did we acquire our singular linguistic/symbolic abilities?
The mechanism remains totally obscure.” Then: “Burials with grave
goods indicate a belief in an afterlife…Incontrovertible evidence for
existence of religious experience.” Another respected anthropologist,
Robert Boyd at UCLA, states: “ Evolutionary theory (Darwinian)
provides a perfectly good explanation for the behavior of other primates,
but not humans. And Bill Calvin, a noted neurobiologist at the
University of Washington, is agreement: “mere anatomical modernity
was not the big step (toward) the life of the Mind”.
In ‘The Selfish Gene’, Dawkins titled the final chapter, “Memes: the new
replicators”. He credits them as the foundation of human culture, and sees them
as giving purpose to an otherwise meaningless existence. “We have the power to
defy the selfish genes of our birth…We can even discuss ways of deliberately
cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism–something that has never
existed before in the whole history of the world. We, alone on earth, can rebel
against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
Of course, as an evangelical atheist, Dawkins cannot attribute this in any way to God’s plan for humanity.
Al Leo
Al, your responses do not address what I wrote, and I’m sorry that you did not understand me. (For one thing, I know rather well what Dawkins meant by “selfish genes” and I think you probably do not.) There’s not much point in further discussion publicly but you are welcome to contact me offline.
I have not accessed your web site, and so I took you literally when you said: "I don’t know what you mean by ‘selfish genes’. You sound awfully superior when you think that I ‘probably do not.’ If this is a contest to determine who is the ‘most informed’ on this subject, you may, to your surprise, not come out on top.
Al Leo
I have no interest in finding out what you know about The Selfish Gene. If you have read the book (or its more technical sequel), then you know that the topic was neither selfishness nor evil, but a “gene’s-eye view” of evolution, making a case for genes as the “subject” of natural selection. My question was not about what selfish genes are but what you could possibly have meant by “the selfish genes we inherit as Homo sapiens.”
My question all along has been this: if sin or imago dei or human-ness (we could add to the list, I think) is inherited genetically, then its signature should be detectable genetically/genomically. If these things are not inherited physically, but are what I have called phantasms, then the discussion is unnecessary. However, if you or others in this discussion believe that there is a physical mode of inheritance that explains sin or human-ness, then you are making a genetic/genomic claim.
I do not believe that either “sin” or “imago dei” are inherited genetically. I do not believe that humans are conceived or born into “sin”. I do believe that some 40K yrs ago at least one (of perhaps many thousands) Homo sapiens brain(s) were ‘programmed’ to perform as mind and invent language by which a new behavior (culture) rapidly spread. (Until the epigenetic mechanism of this is discovered, it will appear as ‘miraculous’.) True humanity is not spread through Biogenies, but, in Teilhard’s terminology, by Noogenes (Ideas; memes). (I am not fond of the word ‘phantasms.’). Simple in principle; difficult to prove.
Al Leo
Darwin wrote about original sin in Descent of Man. And it is of no interest whatsoever in my opinion.
The fall of man was as explained before, as for example when people decided that the worth of people is a scientific fact, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, social darwinism.
The body produces a 100 or so drugs. People are inclined to regard good and evil as fact, we get a kick out of asserting factual certitude over matters of opinion. The factual certitude provides a phony absolute confidence. Some drugs the body produces are associated with it. The drugs are addictive.
You sound awfully superior…
Let’s start with a couple of facts:
The metaphor is the selfish gene, singular, not genes, and it’s a metaphor.
One would hope that Dawkins, being an actual biologist, would not make the lay mistake of referring to an allele (variant of a gene, what you are claiming it means) that caused selfish behavior as a gene.
Joao
“We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth…" We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
These are direct quotes from the final chapter of Dawkins’ book. Did you read it? He gives ample warning that he is using the phrase in a philosophical, not a biological, sense. I did likewise. So it is not a 'lay mistake’. And it is not ‘just a metaphor’ when a raging male lion, who has just displaced the former alpha male of the pride, rips apart a frightened cub who does not carry his genes. It is not one ‘selfish gene’ that drives this action but a combination that forms this instinctual behavior. Even though this is a God-given instinct, many Christians see it as an evil that He will rectify when he establishes His Kingdom on earth. If you have some terminology that will state the problem more clearly, Joao, let’s hear it.
Al Leo
It’s actually in the preface of the selfish gene, and it is mentioned as a technical biological definition.
It is totally unacceptable that subjective terms like “selfishness” are co-opted by biology and given a technical objective definition, and then reintroduced in common discourse as “real” selfishness.
The proper and subjective meaning of selfishness is something like; to pay “too much” attention to their own interests, over others. What is “too much” is a matter of opinion, and shared judgement, which means the conclusion is reached by choosing it.
Nobody normal cares really, how much they or anybody else reproduces. To define selfishness in terms of differential reproductive success may be useful for biology, but is just plain weird for common discourse. It’s social darwinism, another variant of it.
Maybe one could allow it to pass in an environment where people actually understood the proper subjective meaning of selfishness as it is used in common discourse. But the fact is choosing is not taught at schools, so people generally don’t understand how subjectivity works on an intellectual level. As it is, most all people interpret it in terms of straightforward social darwinism, asserting what is good, and in this case evil, as a matter of scientific fact.
In my copy the Dawkins quotes are in the final chapter on memes–not that it matters. You have his use of ‘selfishness’ entirely backward. It is normally used in psychology, but Dawkins co-opted it for a biological phenomenon wherein the gene appears to promote its own survival even to the detriment of the organism that carries it. Dawkins used it this way in hopes that it would clarify a process to readers who are not trained in biological science. It appears that, in your case, it did the opposite.
Al Leo
Dawkins does not acknowledge the existence of the human spirit. The use of selfishness is lurid, it is trying to make inroads into psychology, morality etc. which concepts do not function without reference to the spirit. And after publication of his book loads of atheists talked about altruism and selfishness as if science had a handle on it.
Ahum…choosing is the mechanism of creation. Both the existence of God, who chooses the way the universe turns out, and the existence of the human soul which chooses which way somebody’s life turns out, are a matter of opinion.
Atheists don’t do subjectivity, they don’t do matters of opinion, they only do facts. So they always try to co-opt subjective, emotive terms into objective scientific terminology . That is also the reason why natural selection theory is popular among atheists, because the terminology of the theory uses emotive words like “success”, “struggle for”, “beneficial” etc. You can see in Dawkins book he also speaks of “why hunan beings exist” Usually science would only answer questions about “how” things work, not why, because “why” is understood to be a subjective issue. So it is a pattern of trying to co-opt subjective terms into objective terminology Dawkins has no idea about how choosing works, or subjectivity. It is not taught in school how it works, so there is no kind of reasonable basis there as one might expect from an intellectual. There is a set of prejudices to be skeptical and rejecting of anything about the human spirit, or God the holy spirit, and no more thought than that. He is simply competing objectivity against subjectivity to complete destruction of subjectivity.
I certainly do not justify most of Dawkins methods–and especially his book, “The God Delusion”. But your statement: Dawkins does not acknowledge the existence of the human spirit is not accurate . There is a spiritual element in what Dawkins terms, ‘memes’, that follows up on Teilhard’s Noosphere (but Dawkins gives him no credit). The following quotes from his chapter on memes: "We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth…" We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.” can be interpreted in a spiritual vein. Being an ‘evangelical atheist’ he cannot attribute this to God’s plan. That’s his loss.
Mohammad, forgive me if I sometimes find parts of your responses hard to understand. For instance, just what do you mean by: “Ahum…choosing is the mechanism of creation.”?
Al Leo
That Dawkins believes the human spirit is real must be news to him. He may say things that imply he has a morality and such, from his common discourse, but what is lacking with Dawkins is any intellectual acknowledgement or validation of ethics, spirituality, subjectivity. Subjectivity is just one more thing that science will explain, besides photosynthesis, the flocking of birds, and whatnot. A meme is simply another material thing, an object in the mind.
Well ahum… that just means you disregard creationism, so I thought I would explain to you how creationism works, because you don’t know. You can see on the wiki on free will what a mess of contradictory points of view it is. So you can see how everybody can talk in terms of choosing in daily life, while still have no clue on an intellectual level how choosing works. Dawkins can say things about appreciation, and morality, but have no clue on the intellectual level how this figures with choosing.
The reason you find it hard to understand what I write, is the same reason the wiki on free will is a mess of contradictory points of view. People find it hard to have an intellectual grasp of how choosing works, even they have no problem with talking in terms of choosing in daily life. There is no fault in my explaining. You should follow scripture, or common discourse, that has the correct understanding of how choosing works. And that choosing is the mechanism of creation, it means God choose the way the universe turns out, He creates by choosing it. Just as the soul of a human being chooses the way the life turns out.