Pope reckons evolution is real

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why are we even arguing about this?

For my part, outside of enjoying the conversation of course, to illustrate that meaning demands perspective, and hence is subjective. And that which may appear superficially contradictory is similarly subjective as it is only contradictory in certain contexts.

This begs the question as to whether we consider God to have subjective experience, such that a thing can be meaningful to Him. It would seem to be required, if God is to give something meaning, as opposed to mankind doing so. While this might not give him a magic wand, it does bring him closer to being the magician branie2 referred to.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Catholic theology, God has made us with freedom, including the freedom to injure ourselves and others.

And we have in fact acted from time to time so as to injure ourselves and others.

And the effects of those injuries are long-lasting and can be multi-generational. It's not difficult to find examples of multi-generational damage resulting from child abuse, say. It's a truism that many children are born into broken, damaged or hopeless situations; that the odds of their growing up healthy in body and mind are stacked against them from the outset; and that this is the consequence of choices made by others before they were born, and that they in turn, damaged in this way, will pass on that damage to others. We afflict one another with systemic structures of sin that are transmitted through families and through wider communities and societies.

Through our choices, we injure ourselves, and we injure our society and its members, often in ways that we don't intend and can't foresee. That injury is how we experience original sin. I can't remember who it was that said that original sin was the one Christian dogma for which there was abundant and compelling evidence, but he was right.

You can like that account of original sin or you can dislike it, and you can take the view that a God who creates humans with freedom to choose to injure one another creates them damaged. But I think you do have to accept that this account of the link between human freedom and human diminishment doesn't require an actual tree or actual fruit or an actual serpent.

That is an elegant explanation for what original sin should be an allegory for, but that's not what is expressed by the story of Adam and Eve and what the church generally tries to hammer into people.

Your perspective seems to be that original sin is the ongoing self-destructive nature of humanity as a whole, driven by the various flaws that come with free-will. Presumably in your view infants aren't born actually guilty of any sin, they are merely born into humanity with all the potential to fall afoul of the flaws of human nature. Baptism, then, is more a symbolic cleansing of an individual of inherent negative parts of human nature, than actually a forgiving of an infant for being human.

The common church perspective is that original sin was a specific act that happened in the past, that all current sins originate from and that each individual is guilty of from birth. Even accepting Adam and Eve as allegory, it's underlying plot points are that original sin was something humanity was tricked into by an outside source and that the sin was knowing what we doing was a sin (and that the current ongoing sins are a result of being kicked out of Eden, rather than an effect of knowing what sin is). While the tree, fruit and serpent may only be allegory, they are allegory for something.

Your perspective (which makes original sin an inherent something for humanity to rise above) makes much more sense than the churches perspective (which makes original sin a historic something for humanity to beg for forgiveness for) but I don't really think they are the same thing.

Vivisectus

In Catholic theology, God has made us with freedom, including the freedom to injure ourselves and others.

And we have in fact acted from time to time so as to injure ourselves and others.

And the effects of those injuries are long-lasting and can be multi-generational. It's not difficult to find examples of multi-generational damage resulting from child abuse, say. It's a truism that many children are born into broken, damaged or hopeless situations; that the odds of their growing up healthy in body and mind are stacked against them from the outset; and that this is the consequence of choices made by others before they were born, and that they in turn, damaged in this way, will pass on that damage to others. We afflict one another with systemic structures of sin that are transmitted through families and through wider communities and societies.

Through our choices, we injure ourselves, and we injure our society and its members, often in ways that we don't intend and can't foresee. That injury is how we experience original sin. I can't remember who it was that said that original sin was the one Christian dogma for which there was abundant and compelling evidence, but he was right.

You can like that account of original sin or you can dislike it, and you can take the view that a God who creates humans with freedom to choose to injure one another creates them damaged. But I think you do have to accept that this account of the link between human freedom and human diminishment doesn't require an actual tree or actual fruit or an actual serpent.

And this way you can cheerfully ignore the problem of the omnipotent God who requires us to suffer for something that we did not do, for which we apparently owe him an apology.

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the Christian concept of God was that He was omnipotent and omniscient. By definition doesn't this imply he can do all things?

No, by definition, that is christianity admitting, rather obliquely, that their chosen deity doesn't exist. Omniscience means literally "the knowledge of all things", whereas omnipotence means "the ability to do anything". By knowing everything a being, by definition knows what will and will not happen in the future, thus constraining the power of any being (including themselves) to act only in the way that the omniscient being knows as the future. Therefore a being both omniscient and omnipotent is, in all senses aside from special pleading where both words are taken to mean something other than what they mean, an impossibility in both this or any other reality.

El_Duderino 09

Who even asked him?
The Pope shows up to the party 100 years late and this makes him MORE credible? How low is the bar for this guy?

I'm waiting for him to accept the theory of gravity and watch the whole world call him a 'reformer'.

Serious question; did the pope do some research on the topic himself and publish his findings or did he read about it from knowledgeable people and simply agree with them?

Look the pope is the man to ask about theological issues like limbo and heaven but this is a demonstration that he's waaaaay off when it comes to reality based issues.

Cantremember

What utter nonsense to read on an atheist and agnosticism forum posts seeking to rehabilitate revelation and the stories derived from it.

Cantremember

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, by definition, that is christianity admitting, rather obliquely, that their chosen deity doesn't exist. Omniscience means literally "the knowledge of all things", whereas omnipotence means "the ability to do anything". By knowing everything a being, by definition knows what will and will not happen in the future, thus constraining the power of any being (including themselves) to act only in the way that the omniscient being knows as the future. Therefore a being both omniscient and omnipotent is, in all senses aside from special pleading where both words are taken to mean something other than what they mean, an impossibility in both this or any other reality.

But of course it doesn't mean what you say it means...it means what they say it means. Attempts to rehabilitate original sin and the other dogmas of the religions are as old as humanity because people deep down know nonsense when they hear it. Shifting meaning is the work par excellence of the theologian: it's sad to see the same old tired box of tricks being rolled out again and again.

Cantremember

And, en passant, note how the concept of "sin" is smuggled back in to a discussion where original sin was shifted to "generational consequences" and "systemic structures". Gas!

Peregrinus

Vivisectus wrote: »

And this way you can cheerfully ignore the problem of the omnipotent God who requires us to suffer for something that we did not do, for which we apparently owe him an apology.

Well, of course I ignore it. I was answering Mark's post, which equally ignores it.

The problem of evil is a real philosophical problem, but it doesn't depend in any way on whether the Adam and Eve story is taken to be literally true or not, and Mark didn't suggest that it did.

If you want a discussion about the problem of evil and Christian responses to it, why not open a thread for the purpose? But I don't think the fact that I didn't drag it into this thread is a terribly damning indictment of my contribution.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is an elegant explanation for what original sin should be an allegory for, but that's not what is expressed by the story of Adam and Eve and what the church generally tries to hammer into people.

Your perspective seems to be that original sin is the ongoing self-destructive nature of humanity as a whole, driven by the various flaws that come with free-will. Presumably in your view infants aren't born actually guilty of any sin, they are merely born into humanity with all the potential to fall afoul of the flaws of human nature. Baptism, then, is more a symbolic cleansing of an individual of inherent negative parts of human nature, than actually a forgiving of an infant for being human.

The common church perspective is that original sin was a specific act that happened in the past, that all current sins originate from and that each individual is guilty of from birth. Even accepting Adam and Eve as allegory, it's underlying plot points are that original sin was something humanity was tricked into by an outside source and that the sin was knowing what we doing was a sin (and that the current ongoing sins are a result of being kicked out of Eden, rather than an effect of knowing what sin is). While the tree, fruit and serpent may only be allegory, they are allegory for something.

Your perspective (which makes original sin an inherent something for humanity to rise above) makes much more sense than the churches perspective (which makes original sin a historic something for humanity to beg for forgiveness for) but I don't really think they are the same thing.

Well, yes. And no.
You’re focussing on a legalist conception of sin - the commandments are laws; sin is breaking one of the laws; god is a judge who renders judgment for your breach of the law; damnation (or purgatory, or whatever) is a penalty imposed for the breach of the law. And so forth.
And of course you didn’t come up with that conception yourself; you’ll find it reflected in plenty of Christian (and, with appropriate variations, other religious) sources.
But it’s not a complete account of the concept of sin; there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between sin, etc, and crime, etc. There never has been. You can only push this analogy so far.
In particular, it pretty much breaks down when you try to apply it to something like original sin, as you correctly point out. We can just about see, if we want to, some king of cosmic justice in me bearing the consequences of my own sin. We can also see, as a horrible reality, that I might have to bear the consequences of someone else’s sin - in fact we see this happening daily. But the notion that I’m “guilty” of someone else’s sin - someone who died before I was born - that I am at fault, can’t be reconciled with any idea of justice. And that’s where the crime analogy, and the associated language, ceases to be useful or meaningful.
Augustine was happy to use the “guilt” language in connection with original sin, but that’s certainly not the current position. In fact the Catechism explicitly states that “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice . . .” (Para 405). And if you’re looking for analogical language to discuss the issue, nowadays you are far more likely to find Catholic and Christian voices useing, not the language of criminal law, but the language of of medicine; sin, and in particular original sin, is not presented as inherited guilt but as weakness or infirmity that characterises - and damages - the human condition.
And, for the record, the Catechism denies that the Adam and Eve story needs to be understood literally in order to sustain the Catholic understanding of original sin. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event” - para 390. The “primeval event” is the abuse of human freedom, which of course in historical terms can’t have occurred until the species had evolved to a point in which free choice was a possibility.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, for the record, the Catechism denies that the Adam and Eve story needs to be understood literally in order to sustain the Catholic understanding of original sin. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event” - para 390. The “primeval event” is the abuse of human freedom, which of course in historical terms can’t have occurred until the species had evolved to a point in which free choice was a possibility.

This to me smacks of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. Without a literal reading of Genesis, there is no justification for this entity, who is called God, to be claimed to be the creator of the universe, and therefore we should follow what this god says. Sure, it's mentioned all throughout the bible, but this one book is where it is claimed "This is how the universe started, this is why original sin is a thing that exists, etc"
If you go the allegory route, then this removes the creation aspect from the entity the christian calls the creator. At that point, it is no longer the creator, and at that point, without the creation aspect, there is now no reason to follow this entity.
To help you understand what I mean, an analogy would be like someone claiming Person X founded Country Y and because of that, he follows the teachings of Person X...only for someone else to come along and say that the story of Person X founding Country Y is just allegory or legend, and therefore, the first person's justification for following X's teachings is invalid.

I'm also going to give my understanding of a literal reading of Genesis and why, in that hypothetical situation, it is completely wrong for God to have punished Adam and Eve. I know, from your post, that you will say this is a legalist understanding of sin, but hey, it's how I think.
We understand now that it is simply wrong to punish a two year old for an action that would normally land an adult in prison, simply because the toddler has no understanding of right and wrong. We understand that we should not impose consequences on the child outside of what naturally happens.
Now let's take Genesis. The typical christian claim is that Adam and Eve defied God when he said "Don't eat this fruit", and therefore they ought to be punished. However, what exactly is the fruit? It is called the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So, basically, eating it gives one the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.
So I'll ask the christian, what is good and what is evil? The simplest answer they can give me is that good is following and obeying God, and evil is disobeying God. I will then ask the christian "If you tell a two year old not to do something, do you punish it with an extreme punishment, along the lines of what God punished Adam and Eve with?" They will more than likely say "No. A time out or going to bed without supper, or maybe I'll take away a toy or something". "Why?" I will ask.
"Because the toddler doesn't understand the consequences of their actions"

That is my gotcha moment. Now let's apply that to a literal reading of Genesis. Adam and Eve have not yet eaten the fruit, the very same fruit that gives you knowledge of good and evil. God has told them beforehand not to eat, but they do not yet have the knowledge or understanding that disobeying him is evil. They don't know or understand about consequences or punishment. When God told them "Ye shall surely die", that is a meaningless concept to them, since at this point in 'history', there is no such thing as death. They don't understand what God is talking about.
So, just like a toddler would do, they will do the action they have been told not to do, since they lack any knowledge or understanding of what happens once they do do it.
If we know and understand it is wrong to impose extreme punishments on a two year old for doing something that would land an adult in prison, how come God can get away with it? If the response is something along the lines of "But he's GOD! He can do whatever he wants!", then this is the christian admitting defeat and admitting they subscribe to a heavenly North Korea. A patriotic North Korean only has to replace God in that statement with Kim Jong Un and it would still be as valid for them as it is for the christian (and as appalling to me as an atheist).

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. And no.
You’re focussing on a legalist conception of sin - the commandments are laws; sin is breaking one of the laws; god is a judge who renders judgment for your breach of the law; damnation (or purgatory, or whatever) is a penalty imposed for the breach of the law. And so forth.
And of course you didn’t come up with that conception yourself; you’ll find it reflected in plenty of Christian (and, with appropriate variations, other religious) sources.
But it’s not a complete account of the concept of sin; there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between sin, etc, and crime, etc. There never has been. You can only push this analogy so far.
In particular, it pretty much breaks down when you try to apply it to something like original sin, as you correctly point out. We can just about see, if we want to, some king of cosmic justice in me bearing the consequences of my own sin. We can also see, as a horrible reality, that I might have to bear the consequences of someone else’s sin - in fact we see this happening daily. But the notion that I’m “guilty” of someone else’s sin - someone who died before I was born - that I am at fault, can’t be reconciled with any idea of justice. And that’s where the crime analogy, and the associated language, ceases to be useful or meaningful.
Augustine was happy to use the “guilt” language in connection with original sin, but that’s certainly not the current position. In fact the Catechism explicitly states that “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice . . .” (Para 405). And if you’re looking for analogical language to discuss the issue, nowadays you are far more likely to find Catholic and Christian voices using, not the language of criminal law, but the language of of medicine; sin, and in particular original sin, is not presented as inherited guilt but as weakness or infirmity that characterises - and damages - the human condition.
And, for the record, the Catechism denies that the Adam and Eve story needs to be understood literally in order to sustain the Catholic understanding of original sin. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event” - para 390. The “primeval event” is the abuse of human freedom, which of course in historical terms can’t have occurred until the species had evolved to a point in which free choice was a possibility.

This still falls afoul of the points I made already about the flaws of Adam and Eve as allegory, which is basically: while the tree, fruit and serpent (etc.) may only be allegory, they are allegory for something. Those "something"s don't seem to exist in the relatively recent catechism re-interpretation of the allegory.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This still falls afoul of the points I made already about the flaws of Adam and Eve as allegory, which is basically: while the tree, fruit and serpent (etc.) may only be allegory, they are allegory for something. Those "something"s don't seem to exist in the relatively recent catechism re-interpretation of the allegory.

Yes, of course they're an allegory for something. And the tradition offers extensive discussion of what exactly that something may be. But once you get to acknowledging that they are a allegory for something, you are conceding that they are not to be understood literally.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, of course they're an allegory for something. And the tradition offers extensive discussion of what exactly that something may be. But once you get to acknowledging that they are a allegory for something, you are conceding that they are not to be understood literally.

I'm not acknowledging that they are meant to be allegory, I'm just accepting it for arguments sake, to continue the discussion. What are they meant to be allegories for?

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This to me smacks of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. Without a literal reading of Genesis, there is no justification for this entity, who is called God, to be claimed to be the creator of the universe, and therefore we should follow what this god says . . .

I’m afraid I don’t agree. And, to be honest, I don’t see why you would think this. You’re buying into the extremely simplistic duality offered by fundamentalist biblical literalists; either this text tells us the exact and literal truth at every point, or tells us no truth at all. This is a false dichotomy; there are obviously other possibilities.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If you go the allegory route, then this removes the creation aspect from the entity the christian calls the creator. At that point, it is no longer the creator, and at that point, without the creation aspect, there is now no reason to follow this entity.

Perhaps allegory is the wrong word here? Perhaps we should talk about figurative or poetic language. Let’s run with “allegory”, though.

It’s obviously the case that an allegorical text can tell us something that is true, or that may be true. Aesop’s fables, for example, are intended to make claims about the human condition. You might accept the claims or you might reject them, but I don’t think the claims are invalidated simply by pointing out that the fable involve talking foxes and talking hares, which we all know do not exist in nature. In the “sour grapes” fable, for instance, the talking animals are imaginary, but the phenomenon of jealousy is supposed to be taken as entirely real.

Similary, Genesis talks about creation in six days, and about a garden and a tree and fruit. We can take these things as figurative without it following that the claims made about creation and about human nature are bogus. You might think they are bogus for other reasons, but they don’t become bogus merely because they are presented here using allegorical literature.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

To help you understand what I mean, an analogy would be like someone claiming Person X founded Country Y and because of that, he follows the teachings of Person X...only for someone else to come along and say that the story of Person X founding Country Y is just allegory or legend, and therefore, the first person's justification for following X's teachings is invalid.

I don’t think that’s an apt parallel, though. (Most) Christians accept that the Genesis accounts of creation and the fall are told in allegorical language. It doesn’t follow that creation as an idea is false, or that the account of human nature presented in Genesis 3 is false.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm also going to give my understanding of a literal reading of Genesis and why, in that hypothetical situation, it is completely wrong for God to have punished Adam and Eve . I know, from your post, that you will say this is a legalist understanding of sin, but hey, it's how I think . . .

I won’t argue with anything you say here. You’re basically correct, as far as I can see. If you read Genesis literally and if you do so through a legalist frame of reference then all the consequences that you identify – caprice, injustice, etc, do seem to follow. No doubt those Christians who read Genesis literally and through a legalistic frame of reference have a response to this, but I doubt that it would satisfy you or me.