What do you mean by self destructive habits?
If a particular type of behaviour is seen in some societies but not others, then id agree it is probably cultural. However if it seems that all humans regardless of when or where they lived, engage in the same types of behaviour, don’t you think the behaviour likely has a genetic basis I.e. it is part of our nature?
Consider this example once more.
What is sin? Sin is disobeying God.
Can you give us one sin that we can discuss. It can be stealing, it can be lying, it can be murder, lust or whatever. Might even be beneficial to select 2-3 examples. Then let’s dig into those specific examples using religion snd science:
I think it might be more helpful talking about the romans passage I quoted. Why do you think it says all have sinned? Is it not because it is in our nature to do so ? An example might be acting with envy or lust
@Anthony I’m not a Christian but it seems wrong headed to read the Bible literally. To me the Bible contains wisdom stories which can provide insight into the human condition and how to live a good life. Whether any of it should be read as history might be missing the point.
Metaphorically it seems to me that fallenness just refers to some of our human capacities like our use of abstract reason for our own advantage without regard for suffering that may cause.
And we who evolved away from tree dwelling primates to become the ultimate long distance running hunters have aggression and violence as even more a part of our physical nature. But as I said this is not about animal behaviors but about the human mind – the self organizing life we have in the medium of human comunication.
How @MarkD puts it, “fallenness just refers to some of our human capacities like our use of abstract reason for our own advantage without regard for suffering that may cause”, is close to how I would define evil – and is certainly getting at the abuse of human capabilities. But I would say our fallen-ness or sinfulness is more a matter of self-destructive habits which is more than just evil.
These are patterns of thought and action which are destructive of our free will, relationships, and our potential to be so much more than just another biological species. Examples include everything from procrastination, pollution, and blaming others for your own actions and failings, to things like thieving, racism, murder, and all kinds of abuse.
Since this usage of this word “culture” focuses on understanding the differences between human groups, it is misleading and by adopting it as equivalent to what I said is loaded terminology which is misrepresenting and a strawman tactic. Is the fact that the use of television, cars, and cell phones are spreading all over the world means that is has a genetic basis rather than being something which is learned and imitated from others?
I’m not sure why you think the part of your argument which I labeled 21b has nothing to do with atheism?
Here’s your OP minus the portion which I paraphrased and called #21(b):
Gee, it sounds to me like you–an atheist–are asking anyone like me–a Christian who is willing to believe that God created humans using evolution without a dark side to their nature and that the Fall is a description or allegory of a real historical event. Okay, I’ll bite. [See my response, which apparently didn’t impress you which leads me to wonder if you actually read it, skimmed over it, or just ignored it.]
I called Atheism Argument #21. an Atheism Argument because:
Could a theist–whether Christian or not–have written #21(c)? Yes, I believe so, but so what? The fact is that a theist didn’t write #21(c), an atheist did.
Yes, I’m inclined to think so.
So, Trait #1, “two eyes”, and Trait #2, “a dark side” (e.g. aggression and violence) are genetically inherited traits? Can I quote you?
Okayyyyy… you dont think it would be weird if I labelled your argument ‘Christian argument’ for no other reason than because you were a christian?
Which dont you accept? That “predisposition to aggression and violence are are genetically inherited traits” or that “if two closely related species share a common trait, it is reasonable to conclude that their most recent common ancestor shared the same trait”
Actually, you’d be closer to being correct than I was in the statement that you quoted. After all, I, a Christian did write #21(c); you, an atheist, didn’t write #21(c). My #21(c) was a paraphrase of some of the stuff that you wrote.
As for what I might think is weird, that would be a “red herring” … and irrelevant. For example, I happen to think it’s weird that an ex-Christian atheist (a) spends any time at all in www.biologos.org and (b) weirder that an atheist spends that time asking a mixed bag of self-acknowledged Christians how they would reconcile something he or she thinks they may believe with something that he presumably believe.
That said, what I think is weird and what I think is weirder are nonconstructive distractions in an exchange about an event that I’m inclined to believe actually took place on Earth in the distant path: an event that I have called a singularity which involved at least two human beings and their conscious and intentional disobedience of a very simple, Divinely-ordained command.
A. Ha! I accept that Trait #1, i.e. “two eyes”, is a trait that is genetically inherited from humanity’s MRCAs. And I happen to believe (i.e. accept) that Trait #2, i.e. “a dark side” or a “predisposition to aggression and violence” as you call it, is inherited from humanity’s earliest human ancestors, whether you want to call them Adam & Eve or Ted & Alice.
B. I am hesitant to claim that a gene exists that predisposes humans who have it to disobey divinely-ordained commands; however, I am content at this time to believe that humans have, in fact, inherited that predisposition from their earliest human ancestors.
C. The proposition that I do not accept is that humanity’s earliest ancestors were created or came into being with Trait #2. That you say so tells me that you accept that proposition, but that you accept it is insufficient grounds for me accept the proposition. Prove it to my satisfaction or walk away.
The only reason a brought up chimp behavior was to argue that humans inherited the dark side of our nature (such as the inclination to engage in intercommunity violence) from our non-human ancestors, nothing more.
But if both chimps and humans kill others during fits of anger and jealousy, doest that suggest this behaviour is more than just learned bad habits and that it is code for in our genes?
Why do you think this? Behaviour is either inherited or or not-inherited. If it is not inherited, then then it must be learned which is what I labelled as cultural.
The behaviours underlying TV-use tend to be universal among humans (which imply they have a genetic basis):
This fact that TV use is spreading is also cultural because different socities meet these needs in different ways. Some sit around campfires and with the rest of their tribe while other lie on sofas in from of their TVs
You make it sound like I’m trying to strawnan christian beliefs? Stating why I think that certain assumptions don’t lead to a certain conclusion is not a strawman. If you reject the assumptions, then I accept that you also reject the conclusion.
Do you also reject the logic employed by biologists when they construct Phylogenetic trees?
And I told you I don’t believe in any such thing. It is a convenient excuse and nothing more. We do evil because we choose to, and that includes a choice of indulging in habits of anger and violence.
We have a great deal that is a product of evolution including arms and legs without which we would have a hard time to do evil. Likewise we have a capacity for a range of emotion which includes anger. But it is we who choose how those things are used. And yes chimps also have a freedom of will to use their abilities as they choose as well. Such capabilities are not the problem – they are not sin.
Yes and eyes are a product of evolution and genetics without which none of us would have any use for television. LOL Doesn’t change the fact that the spread of television, cars, and cell phones to the entire world does not mean any of the information required for making these devices can be found in our DNA. Likewise the self-destructive habits of sin the Bible is talking about are not the eyes, legs, and neurochemistry required before people could do these things either. It is talking about habits in the miss-use of the human mind (language) which destroys our free will, relationships, and our potential to be so much more than just another biological species.
Back to your OP… if we give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose you really are trying to understand rather than constructing phony strawman arguments, then perhaps the problem is the way you not only insist on forcing everything into a framework of naturalism but also insist in treating evolution as some kind of preposterous theory of everything, where you cannot even admit that something like television is not transmitted to the next generation by genetics. But frankly you very much remind me of creationists, pushing our credibility to the breaking point, where it looks more and more like they simply don’t want to understand and have no intention of making any effort to do so.
Phylogenetic trees? You mean the things that Phylogenetic trees says are: “Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses, not definitive facts”? It’s too soon to say whether or not I reject the logic employed by biologists who construct them because I know so little about them. I was an avid amateur genealogist for 30+/- years and even more avid, when I became acquainted with “genetic genealogy” when DNA testing became cheap and popular. DNA testing of kinsmen helped me solve several genealogical relationship mysteries.
The challenge for me, in this thread, is to find a tree that is chronologically labeled that covers the last million years. The Fall/singularity referred to in Genesis 3, if it refers to an actual event, wouldn’t have occurred–by my cursory calculation–before then. Why?
Because, playing with Scripture, Genesis 3:6-7 says: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” And Genesis 3:21 adds: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.”
The relevance of those verses, IMO, rises when I read: UF study of lice DNA shows humans first wore clothes 170,000 years ago. Moreover, What Genetics Says About Adam and Eve tells me: “For us to have a genetic diversity of 0.1%, given our mutation rate, we must come from a population with a long-term size of something like 15 or 20 thousand individuals—the kind of size we would expect for a largish mammal like humans.”
Some dog breeds have a reputation for being far more aggressive and prone to violence than others. Do you also reject the claim that differences in the levels of aggression between dog breeds are significantly influenced by their genes?
And I never said anything to the contrary
Do you really think animals have free will?
I never said it was
I still dont undertand what you mean?
What gave you this idea? The only claims I made about evolution are that "certain behaviours have a genetic basis” and that “if two closely related species share a common trait, it is reasonable to conclude that their most recent common ancestor shared the same trait”. Do you reject these?
Where do you think I was constructing a straw man?
I never said this. Sounds like youre trying to strawman me?
So you dont accept something unless it is 100% proven? Do you apply the same level of skepticism when you evalute supernatural claims in the Bible?
What? Are you nuts? 
I’m going on 73 yrs. old. Of course, I believe some unproven things; probably a lot more than I ought to. I’m a “selective skeptic”. Moreover, not only am I picky about what I decide to accept, my pickiness varies depending on the thing I’m invited to accept, and even on the appeal of the person who wants me to accept/believe something. Got a problem with that? Sue me.
Your question quotes words from my post that I quoted from the Khan Academy website. If you have a problem with those words, sue Khan Academy.
My Atheist Argument #21(b)–which is my paraphrase of stuff you said in your OP–went like this:
(i) Research on animal behavior confirms that some species engage in the same "negative behaviors that humans do, e.g. inter-community aggression and infanticide (cf. Gombe Chimp War).
(ii) Current theory of evolution indicates that the Most Recent Common Ancestor of humans and chimps lived approximately 10 million years ago.
(iii) Combining (i) and (ii) suggests that humanity’s “dark side” is at least as old as "the Most Recent Common Ancestor: i.e. 10 million years old.
(iv) If (iii) is true, how do theists reconcile “a Fall” and the pre-human origin of the “the Most Recent Common Ancestor”?
I accept (i) and tentatively accept (ii) at this time. And I am selectively very skeptical about (iii). Since I don’t accept (iii), (iv) becomes:
(iv) Because the truth value of (iii) is speculative at best and dubious at worst, the assumption underlying the question in (iv) is null and void. Ergo, the only reasonable Christian answer to your question is: “There’s nothing to reconcile.”
Is “The Fall compatible with evolution”?
My verdict: I think it is. Winter and spring on the other hand… 
Intermission done … carry on as you were.
Nope. Nor do I reject claims that people have different levels of aggression due to their genetics.
Yes. I think free will is a feature of the process of life itself. There is nothing universal or absolute about free will. It is fragile and varies considerably but it is part of what it means to call something alive.
Yes just as I reject your claim that driving cars and watching TV is genetic just because people all over the world drive cars and watch TV.
In several threads as you attempt to fabricate a conflict between Christianity and evolution, where you strawman Christian theology and you make outrageous equivocations with evolution. The scientific theory of biological evolution is not equivalent to either naturalism nor this absurd exaggeration that it explains everything about human beings.
By implication you do. NO! That is absurd since we never at any time have been talking about your position on anything. You ask for explanations. Explanations are given and you reply with irrelevant facts with vague implications which you dodge with denials like this. It is the same sort of dishonesty which I became tired of hearing from creationists.
You don’t want to believe in Christianity and I couldn’t care less!
Well now your responses all make perfect sense! Either you reject evolution or you dont understand it?
I think you should go back to my initial post and re-read it. I said that the behaviours that lead to TV use is genetic, not TV use itself. I’m amazed that you cant tell the difference
No I never did anything of the sort. I stated my assumptions and then described how I used these to arrive at my conclusions. This isn’t a straw man. If you reject my assumptions, then of course you’ll reject my conclusion.
Where do you get this nonsense from? There is nothing which I’ve said about evolution that is even remotely controversial among biologists. What exactly are you referring to?
Where did I say I want to believe in Christianity? If you actually read what said, you’d have known my aim is that I want to understand how Christians reconcile their beliefs with evolution, which is somthing completely different.
All in all you seem like a very unpleasant person to interact with. I’m glad I dont know you in real life
Well now I understand your responses. You clearly don’t understand evolution if you equate it with claiming “if two closely related species share a common trait, it is reasonable to conclude that their most recent common ancestor shared the same trait”. Dolphins and sharks did not inherit their similar body shapes from a common ancestor – and this is only one example of an enormous number.
I think you should go back to my initial post and re-read it. I asked if the use of television, cars, and cell phones are spreading all over the world means that is has a genetic basis rather than being something which is learned and imitated from others. I did not ask if there are any genetic similarities in those who make use of television. That is an equivocation which is willfully refusing understanding.
Incorrect. The above is an example of this.
Where did I say you want to believe in Christianity?
I understood that you were claiming this but I explained why this is becoming difficult to believe, just as similar claims by creationists that they are just trying to understand evolution is often difficult to believe.
Look in a mirror.
You missed the part where I said “closely related”. Dolphins and sharks are not closely related.
I was reasponding to directly to your statement: “I reject your claim that driving cars and watching TV is genetic just because people all over the world drive cars and watch TV.”
You’re wrong. Here is a link to a webpage for school kids about this very topic
Do you have such a short term memory?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.