Why the Church Needs Multiple Theories of Original Sin (Part 2) | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
23

Hi GJDS,

Yes, and clarity is good! Some of the things I said to Jon Garvey about the way an evolutionary inheritance might be equated with original sin will apply to your remarks too. But I’d like to add something that will hopefully add some more clarity. Scripture seems very clear that our current fallen condition is characterized by some sort of “built-in” tendency to sin. And sometimes this is called a “sinful nature” (though the Scriptural word is “flesh”). And the use of the word “nature” in that context can be very confusing. An Aristotelian use of the word nature refers to an essential property of something, so that the loss of that property results in a different kind of thing altogether. But if sin is an aspect of “human nature” in that Aristotelian sense, then we’re all in BIG trouble. We could not be redeemed from sin without ceasing to be human, and that (I’m sure you’ll agree) is just not right!

But if we are using a weaker sense of "nature*, as something that is an internal motivator, or something like that, then we can once again include sin as an aspect of human nature. And in that sense it can even be built-in to us from the beginning. But we can still be redeemed because humanity as such does not require that we be sinful. It’s just that that’s how we are now, and I take that to be a clear teaching of Scripture. But we can look forward to a sinless eternity, made possible by Christ’s atoning work. Does that assuage your concern here?

24

For anyone to call the historical origin of human sin “trivial” has missed, I think, the nature of Creation, and the importance of mankind in it.

My use of the term ‘trivial’ in this discussion echoes that of Prof Haarsma. Neither of us was referring to “the historical origin of human sin” when we used the word. I was saying (clearly, I think) that the solution to the “problem” under discussion here is indeed trivial if all you need is a narrative of how humans got “separated from god.” It’s far from trivial if you intend to make claims about its effects on human physiology, and especially on higher-level phenomena such as ecology.

I’m trying to see whether any of the participants in this discussion believe that “the Fall” had/has consequences that are easily detectable scientifically (at least in principle). Telling a story about a broken relationship with a deity is easy. Telling a story about an immensely consequential disruption of the biological world, even if it only involves human genetics or physiology, is much riskier for a believer.

Mr. Garvey claims that the second story is a recent aberration. I doubt that our two professors, both avowed Calvinists, would agree.

25

Hi John T Mullen,

This discussion is now covering a very large area; to continue the theme of clarity (and hopefully achieve brevity), I want to discuss three terms that you have used in this exchange.

(1) The problem of evil: I am not suggesting we avoid discussing evil – the Faith considers this a very big problem. Yet I get the feeling that evil is at times is a term that amounts to something along the lines of a thing-in-itself. We human beings understand evil as the consequences of our acts and the notion of good and evil impacts on our character and self-awareness as a result of our experiences, understanding, conscience, and those attributes that underpin our moral outlook and behaviour. The nebulous view that somehow evil is what biology (or God, or something out there) has brought about, or is an aspect of natural selection, makes the subject matter murky and ultimately pointless – but then it may be fashionable to equate the nebulous with a new theology – this is why I emphasise clarity in these discussions.
(2) Human nature: Here I agree that an Aristotelian view is unhelpful, and I suggest a “hardwired” or genetically based one, is equally unhelpful. I mostly use the term “attributes” when discussing this area. By attributes, I mean that we humans are self-aware, with self-identity, are able to recognise an “other” human being by attributing characteristics that are part and parcel of our own identity and self-as-awareness as active. This separates us from the animal world, but does not require a difference regarding our material (or biological) makeup.
(3) Evolution and revision of theology: Again I emphasise that I am comfortable with a reasoned outlook towards the Sciences and the material world. The questions on this subject revolve about what science presents as proven and factually correct knowledge as separated from speculation and hypothesis. Thus theoretical physics and chemistry are consistent with the understanding derived from scripture that reveals God as the Creator of heaven and earth, and of a beginning, and so on. Evolutionary theories imo have not achieved such detailed knowledge and understanding, or the experimental testing with the certainty that is expected from science, and for this reason I do not find some of the outcomes regarding theological matters persuasive. Consensus is fine, but the criteria science demands from scientists are accuracy, reproducibility, proofs that can be examined mathematically, semantically, and experimentally. If any branch of science cannot meet such criteria, then such activities are a “work in progress” (if people dislike the term “speculation”).

I will say that it is refreshing to exchange views in a reasoned and intelligent manner and the Biologos site becomes far more interesting as a result of such exchanges. These discussions can go on at length, and I recognise that short comments will not do justice to the subject matter.

26

Hi Humeandroid,

One perhaps small thing I want to point out - after Adam and Eve were removed from the garden prepared by God, we are told they had to work for a living and face all sorts of problems - the inference is the world they entered was much like the one we know. The the ‘catastrophic impact’ you may be looking for, was removal from a God prepared place. Separated from God may appear trivial for a non-believer, but not so trivial for a believer - however asking science to deal with this is somewhat nonsensical.

27

@GJDS

This statement brought forth an idea. Science indicates that humanity was born in Africa, however many humans like the Semites moved north out of Africa. We do not know why they moved, but just possibly the story of the eviction from the Garden was based on the collective memory of having to migrate from their home land where the weather was warm and finding food was relatively easy to a more northern climate where it was not.

This is not to say that the story of the Fall is false, it is not, but it is rooted in the deep history of humanity where the details of an experience have been lost, but the meaning has been preserved.

It is also true that the Fall is a positive step in the story of God’s salvation story. God does not want blind obedience. God wants humans to love God freely because God is Love, and not because they have to or because they don’t know any better. That could not happen until humans intentionally decided to defy God and go their own way, the way of sin.

On another note I just read an article from the New York Times saying that based on scientific observation the alpha wolf leads by good leadership and loving example and not by asserting dominance through force. Again nature is defying the red fang and claw myth of survival of the fittest.

28

David wrote:

First of all, telling a story about God might seem easy to you, but I can assure you that it is not. Most of the conflict in the world today is conflict about stories of God.

Second, non-believers seem to lose sight of the fact that humans are a part of the universe. Thus that which happens to humans happens to the physical world. Thus the Fall did cause changes in 1) how humans relate to the physical world, and 2) how humans relate to each other who are part of the biological world.

If Albert and I are right, the Fall is part of the coming of age of modern humans as the negative aspect of being human. It seems to me that we are right and history has bourn out the fact that humans are capable of great good and great evil, and we need to take responsibility for both.

The story of humanity is based on how we relate to nature and how we relate to each other and this is what we need to get right if humanity is to survive and prosper. As long as Scientism ignores these issues it is a failure.

29

Relates,

I think you have misunderstood my comment - I am using the term ‘catastrophic’ in the sense used by Humeandroid - and I am saying this does not involve a physical change to the physical world, but is instead a very important theological event - Genesis infers that after disobedience, Adam and Eve were placed into a world that was more or less as we know it (not one that underwent a catastrophic episode - i.e.the entire world was not Eden). I agree with John Garvey in that the notion of a ‘fall’ as sometimes discussed in this forum may be overstated.

30

@GJDS
@Humeandroid

Dave seemed to say that the Fall as he understood it had no impact on the natural world. Jon said that many Christians think that the Fall made the “world” evil.

What I was trying to say was that the Fall made a serious impact on people and their relationship to the natural world, because they were forced to move out of Africa, if Africa was Eden, into a part of the world which was not as hospitable, as you indicated. By God’s grace it appears that the challenges of the new less hospitable world strengthened humanity by forcing it to use its newly developed abilities to adapt and overcome the challenges of this new environment.

Please note that if the Fall had a serious, discernible impact on humans, it had a serious impact on nature, because humans are a part of nature.

31

Dear GJDS,

Thanks for sharing your view of the “Fall.” It seems you agree with Jon and others in asserting that the origin of “sin” did not affect the non-human world in scientifically detectable ways. My aim in my comments/questions is not to address these “theological” or religious kinds of issues. (Whether they are ‘trivial’ or not was also not addressed in my comments, and that should be clear if you read what I wrote.) My goal is to find out whether the discussion involves science at all.

My question, still unanswered (as I suspect it will remain) is whether such purely “theological” outcomes are the true context for the discussion that BL has put before us, involving two Calvinist professors having a disagreement about “multiple theories of original sin.” If you think that context is purely “theological,” then you should note the scientific concerns that Prof Haarsma raises (about human population sizes, for example). Such concerns are wholly irrelevant in a framework of storytelling about “separation from god” in some purely “theological” sense after some kind of “disobedience.” No fact of human biology or broader ecology or genetics is of any concern to someone weaving such a tale. And yet here we are on the BioLogos web site, conversing after watching two Calvinists try to agree on whether they need “multiple theories of original sin.”

I do not mean to discount the opinions of the commenters in this thread, some of whom seem to view the “Fall” as a purely theological occurrence, when I say that I doubt that the good professors see things that way.

32

Humeandroid

Whether any one, professor or not, disagrees with me is of little importance to me. The question is whether someone who does disagree can support their case from the primary sources, as I can. As for the Bible’s own teaching, it’s easily available to all, and anyone can check to find where in the Bible such a catastrophic re-constitition of the natural world is mentioned. And that, in fact, it isn’t.

33

John

I’ll repy to your first post to me at tedious length as time permits: daughter’s baby shower today has limited time.

But surely it doesn’t help to muddy the waters in your post to GJDS by invoking Aristotelian categories from a loose NIV translation of Paul’s σαρχ, when the main point at issue is whether sin is natural to man (in something like the Aristotelian sense of “as created by God”) or an aberration of that nature.

Aristotle or Thomas aside, even post-scholastic laymen retain some sense of “nature” as that with which we were endowed by God. People know it is the cow’s nature to eat grass, and resonate easily with the idea that feeding them animal offal and producing BSE was somehow “against nature”. There is a clear difference, even in lay minds, between sin that has somehow become an integral part of “'ooman natcher” (“the world, the flesh and the devil” being understood in such terms from Jesus’ words), and sin as part of our endowment “in the beginning”, which means sin as part of our creation, if God be our sole Creator.

But as I’ve said, I’ll try to justify in full my contention that evolutionary theory has no demonstrable linkage to sin, on which point the rest of your disagreement with me seems to hang.

34

Roger, while it must remain speculative, I like your suggestion that the ‘collective memory’ of the human family of the event of moving from the lush forests of Africa to the harsh living in the Mideast was recast in Genesis as ‘expulsion from the Garden of Eden’. However, it is complicated by the fact that evidence support TWO such excursions: the earlier by Homo erectus (or Homo georgicus’ Homo ergaster?? some 1.8 million yrs BP) and the later (some 50-60,000 yrs. BP) by Homo sapiens. Chapter 7, ‘Out of Africa…and Back’ of Tattersall’s book, “Master of the Planet” gives a very good account of the evidence for this. The later excursion was taken about the time of the Great Leap Forward and logically could have been remembered in a ‘collective memory’.

Do you think that God has a video record of all this pre-history that He will let us view if (or when) we reach ‘the other shore’? I hope so.
Al Leo

35

Jon,

I introduced the Aristotelian categories because GJDS had said that “the very nature of mankind is at stake” in this debate. He is probably right about that, but then it is all the more necessary to be clear about what sense of “nature” is in view. The point about the NIV’s “sinful nature” was inserted only because many Christians today take it for granted that human nature is sinful, without bothering to distinguish the different possible senses of “nature.” It was just a way of calling attention to the word “nature,” and of cautioning that it must be handled with care. And while we’re doing that, let’s note that it is possible for a property to be “part of our endowment in the beginning,” and “part of our creation,” and still not be essential to us. Which opens up the possibility that sin is a property of that sort. The issue (as you point out) is whether we can think of sin as being “built-in” to human nature (in some sense of that phrase) from the beginning. Why not? The problem, presumably, is that it seems to imply that God has created us in an unjust way. The proposed solution, to put it somewhat crudely, is that it is not unjust if God knows that we would end up in the same miserable condition anyway. Again, that’s not the only solution. But for those willing to ascribe knowledge of that sort to God, it can be a workable solution.

36

Hi GJDS,

Yes, but I doubt that we can prevent it from covering such a large area. It just does. I’ll try to keep this short though.

(1) The problem of evil is all about features of the world that are obvious and undeniable, but contrary to what one would expect God to allow to exist. There are many such features, and evolutionary biology presents us with a few more. I don’t think we need to get into debates about whether evil is a thing-in-itself.

(2) I’m still holding out hope that a genetically-based view of sin enables Christians to view evolutionary biology as providing some support, and not just as a threat. A sometime friend, not just a perpetual foe. I agree with the list of distinctly human attributes, but why think they have no genetic cause?

(3) I think we now have to take it as settled that… (A) Human beings share a common ancestor with other primates, and (B) The total human population has never fallen below 1000 individuals during the last million years. (The number 1000 is actually too low, but it will suffice for our purposes because it is still much greater than 2.) We can deny neither (A) nor (B), and if they require a re-thinking of some theological positions then we must have at it.

37

Hi John T Mullen,

I must admit the statement in point (2), “…a genetically-based view of sin enables Christians to view evolutionary biology as providing some support,” leaves me somewhat astonished – I am taking this as a meaningful scientific statement, and in that context, I would ask you to identify some “sin” gene, or genetic sequence that we could equate with the Christian meaning of sin. This is a fair question, as the burden of proof or demonstration is with those who make such statements. I do not see any threat or conflict in this, as materially we are made of the same “stuff” as the rest of the world; nor am accepting that biology has scientifically isolated a selfish gene. Genetically based statements of this type are also a simple and unsubstantiated form of story telling, as providing an intellectually satisfying narrative for anti-theists.

On your points (3A and 3B) a gaping gap remains in your assertions, and I have yet to read from anyone, a clear and scientifically valid basis for the unique place of humanity in the bio-world, and indeed in every sense the unique and counter-ecological position mankind has displayed and continues to do so. It is well enough to claim something is settled, but for a scientifically sound theory, it must account for the obvious, as well as any fragmentary data people collect. I am aware of the “great leap” hypothesis, and other pseudo-scientific notions on brain activity, and find these unsupported in any meaningful way – anyone can make a claim and provide an argument; from the absence of any comment from you on the criteria I made for settled science, I may need to assume that you adopt some other basis for accepting speculation as scientific fact.

Thus to summarise: (a) the argument from biology lacks a scientific basis because there is no identifiable gene or such, that directly links human “nature” (or attributes) with sin (and as a result, we cannot make theological implications), and (b) your link to a small population and some genetic sequence that leads people to “common descent” for humanity, is unable to provide an explanation for the central tenet that needs explaining, the unique impact of humanity on the ecology of this planet (I claim my point is easily tested and examined scientifically, you link between the notion(s) of descent and the place of humanity in the ecology cannot).

My summary should make my point clear – the theology of the Christian faith does not need to be modified, or Christians question their faith, when carefully and unemotionally examining the claims of evolutionary biology.

Your statement regarding some type of evil in nature is also without a scientific basis – we may examine this theoretically by looking to science to answer the question(s) implied in this statement:

“If human kind were to be removed in an instant from planet earth, the planet would flourish and every type of life would grow until the planet would be bursting with life. Instead every day we are counting the extinction of more species, all due to human impact.”

Again there is ample data to support the above statement. Flourishing life is not evil, nor is an ecologically balanced planet – this is good. Destroying species and causing suffering by human sin is evil. It is wrong to look to evolutionary biology for an understanding of the Christian faith.

38

Hi David,

The consequences that can be measured are the results of sinful human activity - these are all around us, including wars and destruction of the ecology. The latter involve science and the social aspects of humanity. Understanding why we are sinful and how we may repent and change, is the teaching of the Christian faith.

BioLogos has its goal, and I am sure we will read of a wide range of opinions from theists, atheists, anti-Christians, Christians, and so on.

39

Well, I’ve finally done a full reply to what I feel is an important enough issue to warrant one. It was indeed long, at 3K words (though others must judge if tedious). Accordingly I’ve posted it on The Hump of the Camel rather than abuse BioLogos space.

My brief response is that Darwinian evolution cannot be shown to predict, nor consistently to produce, self-centred behaviours. Rather it is, to the organism, a passive process: the “reward” of the environment for whatever accidental variations lead to relative reproductive success.

For the long answer, follow the link…

40

Hi Humeandroid,

“My goal is to find out whether the discussion involves science at all.”

I have mulled this statement for some time, and I think you and I may see this goal in a similar fashion, but from a diametrically opposite point of view. My initial response would have been that I do not regard the Bible as a scientific text book, but I suspect this would not seem relevant to you. Instead I have examined claims that seek to invoke science (or evolutionary biology) to modify theology.

I have read far too little of Hume (and many other philosophers) from lack of time and not lack of interest. From what I have read, the impression I have is that they equate much of religion (or in some cases all of religion) with superstition. My response to much of this is they do not (and cannot) examine Faith and personal experience, and instead look at social aspects of religious institutions and make some sort of judgement - yet other intellects have also made similar examinations and have judged the Faith as central to human existence (eg Kierkeyaard, Polanyi). Both sides of this debate may rely on general scientific and philosophical views, but I have not come across any who insist on measurements and other scientific experiments regarding arguments for the soul, or scientifically detectable aspects of a fall.

I guess I may be able to make a better comment if you provided something specific.

41

Dear GJDS,

Thanks for giving my comments some thought. I think you are right that we are approaching some questions from very different (even opposite) directions. I will try to be a little clearer.

My initial response would have been that I do not regard the Bible as a scientific text book, but I suspect this would not seem relevant to you.

You are right that this is not relevant to my comments on BL, and thank you for seeing and acknowledging this. The question for me is not whether particular bible excerpts or theological writings are “scientific.” The question is whether the pertinent claims have scientific consequences or implications. “Humans fell due to disobedience” is a claim with no specific scientific content. “All humans are descended from two people who lived 10,000 years ago” is a claim with specific scientific implications. Those are two extremes, I know, but that’s why I ask my questions. “Sin” is a term that Christians use variably and often incoherently. Some of its meanings, which are deeply embedded in orthodox Christian teachings, have serious scientific/empirical/falsifiable implications.

I have endeavoured to avoid even suggesting that science can falsify a claim like the first one, and I really do try to avoid claiming or suggesting that Christian theology is “unscientific” or anti-scientific per se. This is not mere politeness: I’m truly a sceptic, and while I must be honest and confess that I find most Christian belief to be ridiculous, I insist that most broad Christian profession is untouchable scientifically. I choose to view this as an argument for compatibility and coexistence of faith and humanism, rather than a jeremiad like that of Prof Coyne.

If you are looking for insistence on “scientifically detectable aspects of a fall,” just read any creationist, old-earth or YEC. (Look at topics such as carnivorous diet, parasitism, animal suffering, human disease, and the like.) Or reflect on the linkage between human descent and “original sin.” It’s hard to avoid linking the two, and that raises questions about inheritance and biology. One can certainly simply assert that the inheritance is “spiritual,” and thereby nullify scientific questions about inheritance, but I think it naive to suppose that this kind of answer will satisfy most orthodox believers. If you have read much of the discussion of Adam and Eve on BL, then you know that there are intelligent Christians who believe that their faith depends on the founding of the human population by exactly two people. This assertion is grounded in history and it has specific biological implications.

Regarding science and the soul, I suggest you search the BL site as I just did, to discover how BL writers have earnestly (even worriedly) addressed the topic. Many thoughtful Christians are concerned that traditional Christian understandings of the soul are now threatened by evolution and neuroscience. And they are right, insofar as any of these views engender scientific implications or, more problematically for believers, explanatory resources.

42

Hi Humeandroid,

I think your distinction the teachings of the Christian Faith and “scientific implications or consequences” deserves serious consideration and I welcome the acknowledgement that the Faith is not anti-scientific per se. This is an outlook that is not always heard from atheists, and the extreme view from such quarters even includes equating superstition with Christianity, and science and reason wholly with atheism. Extreme views from any group are unhelpful, and I include in this any who decide the Bible can be treated as a scientific text, and from this they can determine good science from bad.

I have made a brief and general response on “consequences” of sin previously. Sin as I understand it is defined by Orthodox Christianity as breaking the Law of God. While specifics can be added to this, and discussions on the Law can be lengthy, I cannot think of any major theologian who differs on this definition. The implications are related to the activities of us human beings who have the capacity to choose to do good, and consciously avoid doing evil, but again detailed discussion would be lengthy. It is this moral capacity for good and evil that is common to all human beings and the Faith recognises this as a universal feature – I think this may cause some confusion for some, and they insist on a fall that was perhaps forced onto, or added, by God to humanity. I think this is error – on empirically verifying this, we can all agree that every civilisation has endeavoured to attain some ethical and moral standard; the differences may be attributed to the religious and cultural aspects of each civilisation, and thus we may debate aspects of such, but I cannot see how we can deny this obvious observation.

Regarding descent from two people (Adam and Eve) I suggest a careful reading of Genesis will show the central point is this couple were created by God to commune with Him in a perfectly compatible and benign place/environment/abode, which is distinct from the world, and there is little in Genesis that bothers with other matters. We may infer the existence of other human beings from Genesis, but this is far from central to the teachings. I guess over thousands of years, Genesis has been expanded and elaborated into many versions – but it is important to understand why Christianity put so much effort in Orthodoxy, as this has proven an effective (but not foolproof) way to counter error. I can make similar comments regarding other tenets of Orthodox Christianity, including the soul; I do not regard explanations of the physical aspects of brain activity, nor biology, as threatening – on the contrary, my view is that if Christians have the opportunity to access and attain knowledge in all areas, it is beneficial intellectually and perhaps it may even strengthen our faith - but I think my comments are sufficient for this exchange.