I’m totally with you on that, John. I don’t see any basis for any morality whatsoever from evolution or from any science. All sense of “ought” has to be imposed from either ourselves (as atheists claim) or from some other intelligent agency such as the ultimate one who created and transcends all (as we Christians claim). But none of it will be scientific in any way or form. Science can, at best, tell us what is or what was, and to a limited extent what will be. It can never tell us what ought to be (morality).
This is less an argument than a set of observations.
It seems pretty apparent that we are all sinners. Chesterton remarked that it is the only Christian doctrine that can be confirmed by simple observation. For the Christian after coming to know God, it is apparent that we all come into the world not knowing God, and changing that requires a profound event. The Fall is an attempt to answer the question of why we find things this way. Why do we come into the world not knowing God, rather than knowing him? It is postulated that somewhere back there someone did know God, failed in a test of believing and thus obeying Him, and our plight is somehow the result of that ancient failure. Roger is right that the church traditionally saw this as the result of a “sin nature” (which is rather difficult to define, if you think about it) that was passed down physically through the male. (We have Augustine to thank for that.) This clearly doesn’t work as soon as you know that our traits come from both our parents and women don’t get the one unique thing their fathers have to give, the Y chromosome.
It makes much more sense to me to say that the observation that we come into the world alienated from God is the fundamental thing. If we came into the world in fellowship with God, as Jesus did, the impulses we inherited from our animal ancestors would be controllable. It is the lack of the relationship, not the passions themselves, that make sin inevitable for us. Our passions get us into trouble, but they are also make our joys possible.
So why do we come into the world in this state? It could be that there was a representative couple, as Genesis describes, whose actions determined what everyone else since then has experienced. Or it could be that the dawning of moral and spiritual responsibility occurred many times during the development of cultures around the world at different times in history, all were tested, and they all failed. The “everyman” view carries this to the extreme of viewing it as happening for every person in history. Or it could be that God just decided to arrange the world this way. Personally, I don’t know which is correct, but I am strongly inclined to think that a Fall of some kind happened. God isn’t the author of sin. I have rather liked the idea of a representative couple, but that’s probably just because I was raised on the Genesis story.
The story in Genesis carries the implication that even after the Fall people would recall that there was one God, and it would only be as a result of a gradual degeneration and forgetfulness that animism and polytheism would arise. The absence of written records from such ancient times means that we don’t know if there was a primitive monotheism before polytheism. Polytheism was widespread in the world of the ancient Hebrews, and was certainly a characteristic of the rise of hierarchical cultures after the Neolithic was well underway around the world. Priests for all the gods, and kings go together. Writing was only invented in these civilizations.
At least some of the plains Indians seem to have had a simple monotheistic belief when Europeans arrived, and I doubt that they are unique in that. It would be very interesting to know if other late hunter-gathers had a simple monotheism. Some of them, like the San in Africa seem to have a remarkably peaceful lifestyle. Could these be vestiges of a primitive monotheism, or at least a belief in one good God who is dominant over the nature spirits, which degenerated into polytheism in “civilization?” Was there a golden age or golden moment before things got really bad because of a fall or many falls followed by “progress?” I should have taken anthropology in college.
An interesting article related to the scientific side of these questions is this:
Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: the factuality of value and of the sacred
Like many Christians, I too considered the question of a fall as historical – I think we all want to understand the present by knowing our past. I came to realise at some point in time, that I, and every human being, are unique in God’s sight. This meant (to me at least) that I should begin with, who and what am I, and then consider who and what, regarding other people. It comes down to personal knowledge, and as Calvin points out so forcefully, this knowledge is important within the context of the knowledge of God.
It is obvious that my remarks may turn it all upside down – I am suggesting that the sinful nature, or a fall, begins with me, since that is the clearest knowledge I can have of such a nature. I need not elaborate, but it may become obvious, that the excellence of the Christian faith becomes apparent, if we then continue to notions of repentance, and as Calvin says, a renewal, or rejuvenation, of the soul/person, begins with this self-awareness.
I would venture to add, that as with one Christian, so it is with all humanity who are called to come before the Cross. It may begin with one person, but it is nonetheless universal.
I too was raised on Genesis and have not turned away from that. But, I very much consider it worthy of continued study far beyond my childhood encounter with it; as you do too, I’m sure.
Yes, sin (or its mechanical history, rather) is difficult to define or pin down just as associated concepts like free will will always be too. There is, no doubt, considerable value in chasing down arguments about those things, but meanwhile there is always the brute fact of sin’s ongoing existence and our need for a savior that will persist through all our philosophizing and theologizing.
All that said, I do follow and appreciate scholarly work here that elucidates and delves into God’s Word. So I repent of the dismissive tones that show through my hastily written observations last night. Happy Easter everyone!
The Lord is Risen!
I simply want to add an historical note to our shared faith in the unique event (John Polkinghorne on the Resurrection - Article - BioLogos) that founded Christianity.
If Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, which is the most likely year according to current knowledge of the Jewish calendars then in use (the plural is correct here The Mysteries of the Last Supper and Jesus' Final Days | HuffPost Religion), then we are today celebrating Easter on the exact date on which it happened: April 5.
A blessed Easter to all Christians, all over the world!
1 Like
John,
I will try to reply in order:
- Sin is connected to intellectual development because it implies a conscious defiance of God’s law. Somebody who is so profoundly retarded as not to understand his actions cannot be said to be committing a sin (even though he might display some incipient form of selfishness).
- Moral laws are much more similar across space, time and cultures than is commonly conceded in this postmodern era. I recommend reading the Appendix to C. S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man” for a comparison of different cultures’ moral laws - you might be surprised by the commonalities.
- We inherit genetic predispositions to aggression, anger and addictive behaviors; those predispositions can be controlled (through both an effort of the will and God’s grace), but if we act out on them we can be said to be sinning.
The “original selfishness” interpretation of Original Sin still requires some elaboration, but currently it represents the best attempt to do justice both to modern science and to the reality and pervasiveness of sin.
Dan, 1. I agree sin is connected to knowledge. Jesus himself said it would be worse for Capernaum than for Sodom and Gomorrah because Capernaum actually had access to more knowledge. But intellectual development… I’m not so sure. For example, a down’s syndrom person may have less personal judgement, but may still have an understanding (from being told) of what they should or should not do. Same with FAS etc. They may not understand sin as being in opposition to God, but then many highly intellectually developed people also do not have this understanding of sin.
2. I agree with this one. I believe the similarity of moral laws across cultures exists for two reasons: first that moral laws have a practical benefit which is obvious in many ways. ie. do not murder or steal. second, that man has been created with certain desires and inclinations and understandings (since he is part of God’s creation) that lead him to sense what God wants, even though imperfectly. But, the dissimilarities also point to the fact that there are sometimes different codes of ethics and moralities. (For example offering children to Baal or to the Mayan gods. or the code of the Mafia, or the ISIS, or the common bribery in many cultures). This indicates that different assumptions are made for the development and acceptance of these codes.
3. Yes our basic needs can induce us towards aggressive or addictive behaviour. The difference between thinking it is unacceptable rather than that it is sin, is whether it comes from a mutually determined code of behaviour, or whether it comes from a guide of obedience to God.
The christian belief of sin is that man was created without sin… but with a free will, to decide whether to obey God, or to disobey God. It wasnèt the tree that was wrong, it was disobeying what God said about the tree that was wrong. Man did what God created him to, and operated in freedom and obedience. But when he disobeyed God, he turned his gift of will into the bondage of disobedience. We know that physically speaking, man can obey God. Jesus obeyed God perfectly as a man, though he was tempted. We often obey God in many ways, right to giving up our lives for Him. But still we do not obey perfectly, and can remember moments in our life that we would rather forget. When we treat sin as mere community acceptance transgressions, then we find people often reminiscing or even revelling in their sin, which is a clear sign that they do not really regard it as sin, but only as legitimately testing the taxman.
I find myself agreeing with just about everything @Daniel has argued for here, and the arguments seem persuasive to me too. But I would just like to add that any theory of the transmission of original sin (not just the genetic theory, but all of them) will be subject to the objection that correction of the means of transmission will “minimize the necessity of the atonement.” But then that objection cannot be used to argue for one theory of transmission over another. And unless someone wants to claim that original is not transmitted in any way at all (which would make it very hard to retain the name “original sin”), we must conclude that the necessity of the atonement is not seriously threatened by the possibility that in the future we might be able to prevent the transmission of original sin.
@ Mervin_Bitikofer wrote,
“So I think you and many others are being quite gracious
with these kinds of concessions, Dr. Davis, such as this one that you open with
[quoting me]:
‘Original sin and the Fall of Adam and Eve pose major
challenges to proponents of Evolutionary Creation, both at the level of
theology and also at the level of biblical interpretation.’
“I’m not yet convinced that it is the ECs who are staggering
underneath the weight of this problem --at least no more than any other theists
always have been stymied from Job on down through history.”
Your point is fair as well as kind, Merv. I’ve often emphasized the same thing that
Robin Collins emphasized in the previous excerpt (http://biologos.org/blog/do-we-need-an-alternative-to-the-traditional-view-of-the-fall),
namely, that even apart from biological evolution (leave that out, as I say),
the facts related to human antiquity alone are sufficient to raise serious
questions about the traditional view of the Fall. In other words, this can be
just as much of a challenge for the OEC view as for the TE/EC view. And, as you
say, the larger problem of theodicy is always in the foreground, regardless of
how long ago it was that things got this way. So, you’re right—this question isn’t
peculiar to ECs, but it does come inescapably with the EC position.
John,
I have two comparatively minor quibbles and what are probably two major points of disagreement. First the quibbles:
- A Down’s syndrome individual can be quite high functioning and know right from wrong, but there are much more severe cases of cognitive impairment than Down’s syndrome.
- Cultures that practice child sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. are the societal equivalent of individual sociopaths in our midst: they exist, but they are not normative.
Now the disagreements:
- You say “The difference between thinking it is unacceptable rather than that it is sin, is whether it comes from a mutually determined code of behaviour, or whether it comes from a guide of obedience to God.” But why insist on the either/or dichotomy? What if God works through biological and societal development as secondary (efficient) causes? If it turns out, as I suspect, that most instances of altruism have a genetic component, does that make altruism somehow less meritorious?
- I suspect a lot of our disagreement finally boils down to the fact that you appear to be very strongly committed to an Augustinian understanding of the Fall as a discreet act of disobedience in space and time, while I am finding that position increasingly difficult to hold.
Dan, Re: 1a. Yes there is more severe impairment than Down’s, but the point is that highly developed (or average) intelligence does not lead to an understanding of sin… there are many intellectuals who live reasonably, but do not accept a sin concept, mostly because they are atheists.
2a. Child sacrifice may not be normative for us, but it was quite normative in various cultures in the middle east and in south america many years ago. We call it sociopathic because our moral standards are different.
1 b. The reason for the either or dichotomy is because some sins are acceptable, while other sins are not… depending on the culture.
2b. The disagreement is primarily because I believe sin is disobedience to God, rather than disagreement with societal acceptance. But yes, the Fall was a discreet act of disobedience in space and time which affected us all, which I am finding more understandable as I get older.
JohnZ,
[quote=“johnZ, post:35, topic:414”]
there are many intellectuals who live reasonably, but do not accept a sin concept, mostly because they are atheists.
[/quote] The key word here is 'accept" - the people you are mentioning are intellectually capable of understanding the traditional definition of “sin”, they simply refuse to accept it, probably because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a God they are accountable to.
[quote=“johnZ, post:35, topic:414”]
Child sacrifice may not be normative for us, but it was quite normative in various cultures in the middle east and in south america many years ago. We call it sociopathic because our moral standards are different.
[/quote] Our moral standards are not so much different as more expansive. As C. S. Lewis explained in The Abolition of Man, only those working from within the Tao (Natural Law) can critique it. I’d wager that even those cultures you mentioned forbade murdering adult members of the tribe without cause. Now we extend that protection to children as well, while children in many ancient cultures were simply viewed as their parents’ property. I hope I live to see the day when that same protection will be extended to preborn children. Some sense of the moral law seems to be innate (“written on the heart”), and I would not be troubled if some day we discovered that it has a biological basis. We are embodied beings, after all. That is not to say that Divine revelation, especially in the life and teachings of Christ, can’t add to the natural moral law. My point here is that not all human morality has to be a matter of miraculous revelation - most of the time, God works through natural processes, or, as philosophers would call them, “efficient causes”.
[quote=“johnZ, post:35, topic:414”]
the Fall was a discreet act of disobedience in space and time which affected us all, which I am finding more understandable as I get older.
[/quote] I guess this is the crux of our disagreement; I find this understanding of the fall more and more problematic as I get older.
1 Like
I agree with most of what you said. Only this statement of yours kind of bothers me: “…not all human morality has to be a matter of miraculous revelation…” maybe because I don’t regard God speaking to people as miraculous… and maybe I should regard it so. I would consider it more miraculous if God simply built in true morality into people, as opposed to morality that was simply situational and relative and existed for self-survival and self-comfort and self interest. Of course, this does not contradict the fact that the morality given to us by God is often for our own benefit. But the main reason for the morality is to glorify God, to love God and love our neighbors who are also created in God’s image, even when it goes against our own selfish motives.
Daryl Domning’s book is perhaps the most ‘dog-eared’ one in my library, but I appreciate your leading me to his summary in ‘America’ that I had missed. His treatment of evolutionary selfishness, the ‘Fall’ and moral development is the clearest and most concise that I have found. And thanks for your favorable comment on the Science & Religion presentation I have on my web site. I had hoped that the BioLogos team would see it in that light. Perhaps someday…?
Al Leo
The problem is what is (good) cause. Today people are killing others in the Name of God. It makes me appreciate clarity and simplicity of the Fifth Commandment, Do Not Kill (other people.)
It also makes me appreciate the command of Jesus, Do Not Condemn.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.