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

[John_T_Mullen]

Jon,

I read the long answer, and it was not tedious at all. Not having my own website though, I guess I will have to continue to abuse BioLogos space.

Before we get to the philosophical issues, I have to point out that many of your objections are directed at evolutionary psychology itself. Would it be too strong to say that you think it is all a lot of hooey? If so, I’m not qualified to argue with you. In another recent thread on this site there was an interesting discussion of what non-experts like myself should do when we observe disagreements among acknowledged experts. I claimed that though we cannot pronounce on the specific claims made by either side, we can (if we have a broad-based education) identify when a consensus exists within a given scientific community, and we are rationally obligated to accept the conclusions of the consensus. And that raises the question of whether there is a consensus regarding the biological inheritance of behavioral traits (and cognitive traits too). It seems to me that there is, though I will admit that it is not as strong as the consensus that exists in favor of common ancestry. I have often been impressed by the criticism that adaptive explanations for human behaviors are far too easy to offer, and are exceedingly difficult to confirm. It is easy, and tempting, to dismiss them all as “just so stories,” and I have a great deal of sympathy with that concern. However, for my purposes I don’t need them to be adaptive, just inherited. If they turn out to be spandrels, non-adaptive themselves but somehow attached to some other genetic traits that are adaptive, what is that to me? I am assuming is that behavioral (and cognitive) tendencies are genetically inherited, and that’s all I am assuming. I am doing that as a non-expert who is surveying the field of evolutionary psychology with both philosophical and spiritual interests, and the result of the survey is that I may take it on good authority that behavior and belief are genetically inherited. So I have to bow out of your dispute with the evolutionary psychologists, and just ask that you take it up with them. I will continue to observe as an interested non-expert. [As an aside, I see that you have already done that by commenting on Justin Barrett’s post on this website about a year ago. For those who are interested, that post contained a link to an overview of “EP” entitled “Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer” by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, with an excellent list of references. Would you at least agree that their primer is a very informative survey of the current state of the field, even though you think the entire field is misguided?]

Ok, so here are the philosophical problems I have. You wrote that “any behaviour we observe in human society now can, of course, only be attributed to evolution by the circular reasoning that if it is present it must have evolved. Which is the whole question at issue, if sin might not have evolved.” Respectfully, there is no circular reasoning being employed at all. We are trying to explain the sinful behaviors we now observe in human society. There are two alternatives: genetic inheritance and cultural inheritance (or some combination of both). Let us assume for now that we might be able to eliminate cultural inheritance as a fully adequate explanation (I think we can, but all that’s needed here is the possibility that we can). Then genetic inheritance might play some role, even if it turns out to be a minor role. But a genetic inheritance might have evolved. Hence sin might have evolved. No circularity at all, and the conclusion is at least a plausible possibility that we must take seriously. And to answer one of the questions you used as a sub-heading: Yes, evolved behaviors are consistent with sin.

There is a point at which I think you are obscuring a question of considerable importance. In your discussion of cuckoos you wrote… “isn’t it selfish and immoral to push the host’s eggs out of the nest and fool her into feeding you? I answer, ‘Not if it’s in your God-given nature to do so, nor even if a blind evolutionary process rewards it by reproductive success.’ It’s just the right way to be a cuckoo.” The word “right” in your last sentence cannot be a moral term. It is a biological norm, to be sure, but it can’t have moral content unless cuckoos have some sort of moral understanding. So let’s assume they don’t, so that this behavior is not immoral for them (because no behavior could be immoral for them). But for any being with even a very rudimentary moral understanding, such behavior is immoral. If we can imagine a morally aware cuckoo, that poor bird would immediately conclude that it is in its God-given nature (so let’s give this cuckoo a divine awareness too) to behave immorally. In fact, that seems to be our condition precisely. So this example does not show that sinful behavior cannot be a product of evolution. It merely shows that the behavior is not sinful until a moral and spiritual consciousness is present. But that’s precisely the point.

You also wrote that “an equally effective and more rational solution would be biological, and one could easily argue that we’ll soon be in a position to fix any genetic disorder on a mass scale. All we have to do is identify the genes responsible for our evolved self-aggrandisement, modify them accordingly, and we’ll have solved the problem of sin at a stroke, and generated selfless love for God as a useful by-product. If you think that’s irreverent or facetious, tell me why it wouldn’t work as well as the passion of our Lord, given sin’s ontologically physical nature?” I believe this is the same objection that Denis Alexander makes to any attempt to give a genetic account of original sin. It’s not irreverent, and it’s not facetious, because if one’s account of sin has the consequence that Christ’s atonement is unnecessary, then of course it must be rejected by all Christians. But if a genetic account of original sin has this problem, then so does every other. To see why, consider that every account of original sin must include some means by which sinful condition is transmitted. Again, a genetic means and a cultural means seem to be the two obvious candidates. But even if we could think of others, they would all be subject to this same alleged objection. Why? Because we will always be able to imagine ways in which the means might be thwarted, and then possibly attempt to thwart it. And if we succeed, we would (according to this objection) render Christ’s atonement unnecessary. But this argument can be generalized to every possible means of transmission. Once we think we know how sin is transmitted, we can begin to devise ways to prevent its transmission. And if that bare possibility renders Christ’s atonement unnecessary (and I certainly don’t think it does), then every possible means of transmission would likewise render Christ’s atonement unnecessary. So this objection must be abandoned. As an additional attempt to explain why the atonement can never be rendered unnecessary in this way, I will call attention to my original suggestion, which was that we are in this miserable condition because God knows that we would fail any test administered in ideal circumstances. That fact about us, by itself, requires an atonement. And that fact never changes. Christ’s atonement will always be necessary, even if we should get better at preventing the transmission of sin.

Regarding chimps and bonobos, I just have to add this. It doesn’t matter that the split between them occurred after they split from humans. I think it’s terrific that bonobos don’t exhibit the aggressive and potentially sinful behaviors that chimps do. Good for them (that’s not a moral “good”). But when we ask what we humans are like, it is quite obvious that we are more like the chimps than the bonobos. It might have been nice if our evolutionary past had led to a more bonobo-like condition. But it didn’t, it led the other way. We do know this, because we observe ourselves with the chimp-like tendencies. And once we have the moral and spiritual consciousness to recognize what we are like, we see that we are sinful.

Finally, I have to object to the characterization at the end of your essay of the view that there are “evolutionary sinful behaviors.” You wrote that “it requires denying or ignoring aspects of the Scriptural accounts and logically leads, more or less inevitably, to a complete recasting of the story told by Bible.” No, that’s just not correct. And you are falling into gross rhetorical excess here, of the sort that you normally avoid (from what I’ve read of your posts). The account in Genesis is indeed being regarded as non-literal, but surely that is not a “complete recasting.” What the story tells us is that we have been born into a fallen world, that we are somehow responsible for that condition, and that we are in great need of redemption. That is true, even if there was no actual test carried out in ideal circumstances, but we were instead brought into this condition on the basis of how we would respond to such a test. That is the only difference. The rest of the story of redemption plays out in exactly the same way. Hardly a “complete recasting.” Please.

[John_T_Mullen]

GJDS,

I don’t understand why you are so astonished. It is not a scientific statement. It is a statement about whether Christians may use what seem to be the deliverances of a science (in this case, evolutionary psychology) as epistemological support for something that Christians have believed for a long time (that we are somehow pre-disposed toward sin). That is a philosophical statement. I will leave the identification of a “sin gene” to those who are qualified to do that, though I understand from reading their work that it will not be anywhere near as simple as that. I am assuming only that behavioral traits (including sinful ones) are inherited biologically. The evolutionary psychologists seem to think that is so. I must refer any further objections about that to them.

I didn’t comment on your criteria because I don’t think I had any significant problems with them. I suppose it is unfortunate that we tend to comment only when we disagree. But I can grant that evolutionary psychology (EP) does not have quite the same scientific status as (A) and (B) from my previous post. I said something similar in responding to Jon Garvey’s apparently deep skepticism toward EP. But all I can say is that I am still generally impressed by it, so I think we Christians need to work it into our overall understanding of things. However, the case for (A) and (B) is very strong, having been made repeatedly on this very site, by those who are qualified to make it. In fact, the case for (B) was presented on a very recent (June 4th) post by Dr. Venema. Skepticism toward (A) or (B), then, is highly problematic. And I do think (A) and (B) together will require at least some theological modifications.

No statement about evil is going to have a strictly scientific basis. So I don’t see it as a problem that mine doesn’t either. I’m not quite sure what the connection to ecology is though. I agree that we are very bad at taking care of the planet. I also take that to be sinful. I’m not sure we are disagreeing here.

I can assure you that I don’t look to evolutionary biology to understand Christian faith, though I do think it can help us interpret difficult passages of Scripture like Genesis 1-3. But evolutionary biology does not tell me that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin. Scripture tells me that.

[GJDS]

Hi John T Mullen,

From your comments regarding the criteria for settled science, I now feel that our discussion(s) may find disagreements ‘at the edges’ rather than with the essential aspects of the Faith. I usually regard biologically based statements as scientific, but evolutionary psychology (and indeed any behavioural psychology) is outside my professional expertise, so I would see this as sometimes interesting and controversial, but subject to a different criteria (and less weighty). As a general rule, I feel that examination of any knowledge (provided we have some capacity to understand it) is intellectually interesting and may even strengthen our faith - so these exchanges are expressions of curiosity and interest, and not some type of aggressive exchange and certainly no threat to the Faith.

I will make a (perhaps vast) generalisation; I feel the central aspect of these matters is how we understand freedom as an intrinsic aspect of a human being. I cannot see a problem with any inherited trait, nor do I see a problem with understanding that our upbringing and our cultural setting would impact on us as human beings. Psychology covers many theories and schools of thought, and from my past ‘brushes’ with this area, I had formed the view that EP was more of a fringe outlook and not mainstream - perhaps I need to update on this area. My comment on ecology is meant to be more of a scientific observation, in that if human beings were subject to a law of natural selection (NS), I cannot comprehend how such a law could be absent when human beings artificially modify things on a vast scale - ordinarily NS would apply to all bio-entities, and also applying to such a vast area of nature, I would think it would modify human behaviour and impacts, otherwise we should be very sceptical regarding NS as a law - perhaps food for further thought. Evil within this context also seems problematic to me, as NS should ‘sort it all’ and all bio-entities would be subject to it, achieving the ecological balance we now can be observed on this planet. The other opposing view (briefly) would argue that God as all-powerful, should control and manage conditions so that evil outcomes are eliminated - further food for thought. Each of these points of view cannot deal imo with human freedom as the grounds for being human.

On all other matters of interest, I think we are in general agreement - thank you for your comments.

[Jon_Garvey]

John

I made only one reference to evolutionary psychology, basing the rest of my argument on the assumption of strict Darwinian processes. But I am indeed skeptical about it because of its methodology, which is capable of assessment even by an outsider. To examine an end result, and to posit plausible accounts of how it might have had selective advantages given various assumptions about what life might have been like at the time it might have arisen on a model that might be a complete theory of evolution doesn’t impress me as liable to give true knowledge. It’s just a skeptical streak I have in my genes - may even have survival value, for all I know. It’s the reason that I also presume to discount the consensus position of phrenologists and astrologers, respected though those professions once were (I exclude fields in which I was actually trained, like Freudian psychology, where my skepticism was more professional). The degree of certainty needs to be high if it is to pose a challenge to catholic doctrine.

There are two alternatives: genetic inheritance and cultural inheritance

Implied in my “circular reasoning” point was the assumption that evolution only makes the Biblical account of an original sin, and Paul’s statement that by one man sin came into the world, less plausible if it’s a rival, rather than an extra. But your reply says no more than that evolution provides a possible alternative to consider. Fair enough: we like multiplicity of choice in our culture. So we have genetic and cultural - which is more plausible?

But is that not a false dichotomy? Your “cultural inhertance” would seem to be a pretty broad category, if it includes Augustine’s theory, for example. His position was that the spiritual corruption of the race brings moral concupiscence to bear on every physical act of human intercourse, which contaminates the offspring. Antiquated assumptions of course - but still with some followers, who no doubt would have considered if AID would negate original sin. But it seems neither social nor genetic to me.

But a more robust view of cultural transmission (which I think I see hinted at by John Walton, if I don’t misrepresent him) is one in which we, as irreducably social creatures, imbibe our very humanity with our mother’s milk, with our acquisition of language and concepts, with our childhood modelling, with our enculturation. In that model, I suggest that the only way of avoiding cultural sin - total isolation from all human influence - would solve the problem by creating a non-human imbecile. If you’re implying that genetic selfishness is so deeply inbuilt that adequate GE would destroy us as humans, then it seems the work of Christ is not to restore the true image of humanity, but create a new one altogether. Yet Christ comes to “restore all things.” To what?

Cuckoos: I gather you didn’t find the parallel example of dairy farming evidently immoral. Or you’re a Vegan. But the question of lack of moral awareness in animals is important, and I omitted it purely because I was using Darwinian spectacles to show that it is an amoral, not immoral, process - natural selection cannot produce unconscious selfishness, but only an unconscious concern for the next generation. Hence my further point that evolution cannot explain the arrival of man’s moral awareness, which is counter-evolutionary.

But I want to take your distinction between non-moral animals and moral humans further. I’m not a theistic personalist, that is I don’t believe God is a moral being like us, only more so. He is the source of morality as he is the source of all good things, including original human nature. He himself does not keep the 10 commandments - how could he? Could God be an idolater? Could he dishonour his parents? Adultery is impossible to a Spirit, theft and coveting are impossible when all things belong to you, and murder is impossible when you have Lordship over all life and death anyway. He is in heaven, and we are on earth. He is the Lord - he will do what seems right to him.

So I hold that, whilst the character of God in love, righteousess and justice is consistent with the Law, taking that both as the biblical law and the law of conscience, that Law is built around God’s template for the nature he has given us as humans through creation … even evolutionary creation, if that be his method. And that is why we would be immoral to act like a cuckoo (though what that would involve is hard to imagine, since we don’t lay eggs), but we are not immoral to kill a calf and steal the milk from its mother.

Hence the problem of the cuckoo with a conscience needn’t arise in Christianity: if it gained rudimentary moral awareness, it would no longer be a cuckoo. And if moral awareness is part of the image of Christ in us then it would be a man. Possibly a dairyman.

To enumerate the “re-casting” tendencies of grounding sin in evolution would take another article (except in the most trivial sense - clearly gluttony is only possible because we evolved eating, adultery is impossible for amoebae, and so on). I don’t say it’s a path that you follow - to the truths of birth into a fallen world, accountability and the need for redemption I say “Amen” in brotherhood. I believe the Bible’s story is bigger than that, but “Amen” anyway. But I disagree with you in that I believe the theological loose ends that your scenario leaves will, down the line, tend towards a domino effect on core doctrines, including the atonement. It happened before, a century ago.

[Jon_Garvey]

An interesting 2011 piece suggesting that reports of chimp selfishness may be largely artefactual:

However, past experiments had suggested that chimps were loath to share, being what scientists had classified as antisocially selfish instead of pro-socially altruistic. This led to a widely held belief that human altruism evolved only after humans split from their ape cousins about 6 million years ago.

“For the past decade we have lived through the curious situation — frustrating for many chimpanzee fieldworkers and observers — that chimps are well known for spontaneous acts of altruism, yet have not shown the same tendencies in well-controlled experiments,” said researcher Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University in Atlanta.

It turns out this past failure to find such altruistic behavior might have been due to the experiments on the chimpanzees themselves.

“Most earlier studies had presented the apes with a complex apparatus that helped them deliver food to themselves or others, often so complicated that the experiments tested tool skills rather than social tendencies,” de Waal told LiveScience. “Ours is the first study that uses no such apparatus at all.”

Conclusive? No, except to show conclusively that biological research is provisional and vulnerable to many human biases. Cautionary? Yes, when calling into question long-held Christian doctrines on the basis of science.

[John_T_Mullen]

Thanks Jon,

Just a quick couple of thoughts about the 2011 piece. Let’s just accept its conclusion and grant that altruism developed in chimps too. The only thing that follows from that is that they are even more like us than we had previously assumed, having both tendencies toward altruism and tendencies toward selfishness. Because it is the tendencies toward selfishness that one might equate with original sin (given that the necessary cognitive capacities are also present), the additional presence of tendencies toward altruism are irrelevant. That goes for both chimps and humans. So I’m not seeing any extra caution supplied by these findings, even if we grant them all. And let’s please remember that the the long-held Christian doctrine of a biologically transmitted tendency toward sin is not being questioned at all. It is the historical process by which we came into that state that is under scrutiny.

[GJDS]

Hi Jon,

This is an area that ‘gets to me’, mainly because such exercises are often reported as experimental verification of some evolutionary notion. In fact they are more like, “lets try this and see what happens”. Experimental verification of any aspects of a theory requires are far more stringent and rigorous approach that displayed in these type of activities. I have referred to another result that tried to compare the learning ability (and cognitive abilities) between a chimp and human baby of similar ages - this so called experiment concluded the chimp was far more capable than a human child - perhaps the conclusion should be, chimps evolved from human beings (talk of planet of the apes!!??). I will just add to John T Mullen’s comment below (I hope you do not mind John TM), in that we should not accept any conclusion from these type of studies as they are not scientifically sound.

[KruJuice (Aaron “Kru Juice” Veverka)]

I find these are helpful discussions in the same way that it is in theological discourse.
We like to say that these principles and ideas are etched in stone, yet they are not.

I take what would be the traditional Orthodox view of sin, which is the most ancient view as this doctrine has a 2,000+ year old vintage,
“Ancestral Sin - To the Orthodox Church, Original Sin
is “The fact that everyperson born comes into the world stained with the consequences of the sins of Adamand Eve and of their other ancestors. Those consequences are chiefly: (1) mortality,(2) a tendency to sin, and (3) alienation from God and other people. Original sin doesnot carry guilt, however, for a person is guilty only of his or her own sins, not those of Adam. Therefore, the Orthodox Church des not believe that a baby who diesunbaptized is condemned to hell. Se Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 5:12-16”.vii”

You can read more about ideas of sin on (PDF) Original Sin and Ancestral Sin-Comparative Doctrines | James DeFrancisco - Academia.edu

Taking this idea it fits right in either creation account, and it fits in biblically better then the western views of sin. This is only my two cents.