In “discussing” evolution with creationist advocates, it has become apparent to me what their true agenda really is. Honestly I don’t believe for a second that it is “old-Earth” vs. “young-Earth” ideology, since often, in the face of the evidence, they will abandon that distinction. Nor can it truly be evolution as a process, since they seem to concede the point about what they term “micro-evolution” all the time (a pose, of course, to seem reasonable and scientific while actually being neither).
Most creationists are not truly disturbed by the idea that viruses and bacteria evolve before our eyes, or that, for example, the mice that were brought to the Faroe Islands are undergoing a speciation event in the last 500 years or so; their issue is one that, they believe, cuts to the heart of their beliefs; Original Sin.
If humans are just another evolved animal, then the most important aspect of the Genesis story, to their eyes, becomes meaningless, namely the Fall. If the Fall is meaningless, then Christ’s sacrifice is meaningless, and by extension, their whole religion is meaningless. This is their true fear about evolution, and all the peripheral issues they have with it are a smokescreen, whether conscious or not, to try and discredit the theory that seems to undermine their whole belief system.
But is it really the case?
In the debate I had with the Jehovah’s Witnesses I mentioned yesterday, this issue was finally revealed explicitly to me, and that is when I realized what the crux of their long-standing objection has always been. And a counterargument immediately came to mind.
The whole problem seems to me to be an artificial distinction between what I would term Conceptual Original Sin and The Original Sin. Fundamentalist literalist thought emphasizes The Original Sin, because it is a visceral example that appeals to a simplistic worldview, in which all answers can be found simply by referencing chapter and verse. But it also makes God out to be just a tad unreasonable, since He condemns Mankind to the burden of original sin simply because of the actions of the first humans. Considering the alleged philosophy of love and forgiveness, a “divine attribute”, according to all Christian faiths, it’s incredibly harsh punishment for a relatively minor transgression. Even Cain was not punished as badly for the crime of murder, which was explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments.
However, Conceptual Original Sin is a stronger concept in every respect; “COS” refers not to a specific event, but rather to the innate sinful nature of man; it is an attribute that we are all born with. God did not need to “punish” us with it, and Christ’s sacrifice stands against it. If you must have an event, then why is Adam and Eve eating an apple in a garden 6000 years ago so much stronger an example than the first hominid with a hazy idea of “right and wrong” actively doing something wrong, and knowing it to be wrong, on an African plain a million years ago?
So how did the JWs respond? They claimed that Adam was perfect and then he fell, and Christ, being perfect, was the only being capable of redeeming that fall from perfection, in a like for like ransom. But Genesis does not say that Adam and Eve were perfect, simply that they were made in God’s Image, which generations of scholars have determined does not mean anything as silly as physically resembling God; if God is perfection, then he must be physically perfect, too. Since “God’s Image” cannot be a reference to physical being, then the “perfection” of Adam and Eve cannot be demonstrated scripturally by interpretation, and it is certainly never referred to specifically. Indeed, the other Literalist ideas about death being introduced after the Fall and so forth stretch the words of Genesis to breaking point as well; there is simply no primary Scriptural basis for it. New Testament writers who refer to it at all are not primary sources and are themselves involved in interpretation of Scripture.
In other words, the Literalists explicitly go beyond Scripture to explain their adherence to literalism. When I point out the contradiction inherent in that position, they getrather irate. But the fact is that the Fall itself is proof of their imperfection, and therefore Christ’s sacrifice cannot be a like-for-like transaction. In the case of Conceptual Original Sin, however, Christ’s sacrifice is actually returned to its Scriptural basis; the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, for all time, not simply those of Adam and Eve. Christ’s perfection is not, and never has been the issue. Once more, it is a smokescreen erected by Literalists to protect an inherently untenable interpretation.
So, as I see it, that’s the problem, but in reality, if these people were a little more honest and intellectually rigorous, they would see that there is no problem. Evolution only says how we got here; it says nothing of our nature, or our propensity for “sin” (wrongdoing, whatever you want to call it), nor does it render meaningless any religious viewpoint except for hollow literalism, which should be abandoned for reasons far deeper and more important (on a human level, at least) than the fact that it flies in the face of the evidence.
Finally, a question for Literalists; do you still refuse to wear cotton and wool within the same garment? It’s a sin, you know, according to Leviticus.
PS: I do not assert that this is “the Truth” in any regard; it is a logical argument that I find appealing, and to which, as far as I know, no serious objection has yet been raised. I in no way claiming any form of religious superiority, either, my claim yesterday that I belong to an “enlightened religion” notwithstanding; I continue to put these articles out because I find the arguments interesting, and believe that they can be used by believers and atheists. As far as I’m concerned, the act of simply examining your beliefs is a vital one, and can only result in good. I don’t consider myself in any way to be a religious authority or religious writer. I am simply a writer, and that’s all there is to it!
I didn’t know that Leviticus thing. Does that mean that Q-tips are inherently evil? Maybe only the JWs know…
Another great post though, highlighting the flaws in such arguments through pure logical reasoning. Me likey!
Q-tips are inherently sinful. At least my 3-year-old thinks so when we try to clean the potatoes out of his ears.
Logic is the most powerful tool we possess against the forces of irrational belief. I’m not saying that Catholicism is inherently rational; indeed, all faiths must accept that they are inherently illogical at a fundamental level, something I readily admit to, even as a Catholic. I believe in God because I believe in God not because of a preponderance of evidence has led me to it.
But when a belief tries to shut down the very thing they believe God gave us above all others, namely our enquiring intellect, then they do a disservice not only to themselves and all religions, but also to Mankind in general.
Ooh, this is getting heavy again. I shall picture Q-tips and bunnies again…
I think you’re crediting them with taking the theology too seriously, when they don’t actually care very much about that any more than the scientific or philosophical issues.
It’s really just a political issue about American tribal loyalties: modern Protestant mythology has it that a “strictly literal” interpretation of the Bible is the basis of authority, modern biology is clearly in conflict with it, therefore it has to be faced with a blanket of rejection and rejection to keep all that creaky rotten timber from being knocked down by its gentle breeze. Websites like AIG virtually admit this in their mission statements, though of course they spin it in more dignified terms.
Anyhow, nice to find you have a blog these days, rebel!
Thanks for the hello! Good to see you too; sorry I’ve sort of dropped off the face of the map in every regard.
As you can see, it’s been a long time since I’ve been able to even blog with anything remotely approaching regularity- the demands of fatherhood and househusbandom (if that’s a word, and if not, I call neologism!)
Certainly the people I’ve spoken to over here do seem to take the theology of their position seriously, even though it is utterly, transparently self-contradictory. There are all sorts of lovely little caveats that they don’t even apply rigorously to their own internal theology, let alone the specifics of their doctrinal beliefs.
For example, the JWs have the bar agains “misuse of blood” that they claim dates back to Abraham (which it does – Hasidic Jews have a similar prohibition, albeit less strictly applied) and so they refuse blood transfusions, equating it to “misuse of alcohol” – VERY twisted theology.
However, they then claim that leviticus no longer pertains, because Jesus established the new Creed (as he states several times in the Gospels), but they refuse to see the utter inconsistency of taking the original prohibitions of Abraham at face value even as they refute Leviticus.
There are many other ludicrous examples, but they all tell me they do take it seriously, no matter how ill-informed in doctrinal matters they really are. That said, I do not in any way underestimate the political motivations that lie at the heart of many of their literalist beliefs.
Anhoo, must depart again… dinner to prepare and children to rescue from certain dirt! Hope to be able to be online soon.
Have you ever taken a look at the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Just a few comments on how we see things:
“They claimed that Adam was perfect and then he fell, and Christ, being perfect, was the only being capable of redeeming that fall from perfection, in a like for like ransom. But Genesis does not say that Adam and Eve were perfect…”
Orthodoxy teaches that Adam and Even were not created prefect, but rather with the potential to become perfect (this leads into the next thing..)
“it also makes God out to be just a tad unreasonable, since He condemns Mankind to the burden of original sin simply because of the actions of the first humans. Considering the alleged philosophy of love and forgiveness, a “divine attribute”, according to all Christian faiths, it’s incredibly harsh punishment for a relatively minor transgression…”
The Orthodox understanding of the Original Sin is not one of punishment. The disobedience to God’s will didn’t call down some kind of divine condemnation, but rather severed humanity from the link it was created to share with God. Contrary to Western understanding, we are not all somehow responsible for the sin of one man long long ago, but rather what we inherit is the effects of that sin: death and enslavement to the passions. The first humans decided to follow their own will they cut themselves off from the life-giving Creator and soon began to ‘decay’ by being subject to death and losing their state of apatheia thus being subjected to the passions (or emotions taken to the extreme). Which leads to…
” But the fact is that the Fall itself is proof of their imperfection, and therefore Christ’s sacrifice cannot be a like-for-like transaction. In the case of Conceptual Original Sin, however, Christ’s sacrifice is actually returned to its Scriptural basis; the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, for all time, not simply those of Adam and Eve.”
Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that Christ ‘had’ to die as some sort of way of pleasing God (which, Christ was…) Why would God need to die to appease himself? Further, why is it God that needed something to change in order to be set right and not us who where the ones who fell? In the West there is too much focus on the Cross to the exclusion of the rest of the life of Christ:
1.) God took on the flesh, materiality, through the Incarnation. By doing this he re-sanctified creation in general and humanity specifically. This made it possible once again for humanity to find that essential link (through a process known as theosis) and to be able to once again achieve the state of Adam and Eve before the fall, and then from there to work towards perfection.
2.) By dying on the cross Christ entered the world of the dead, where all humanity went, and set the righteous free. This is event known as the harrowing of hades.
3.) By His ressurection, Christ defeated death, making it so that the humanity did not have to die by necessity anymore. The body might wither away since it still belongs to a fallen world, but the soul is no longer held captive in Sheol, or Hades.
4.) By sending the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, God have us the means to restore ourselves to a state of blessedness.
Just thought I’d present another view from the Christian East, the Tradition from which Catholicism split.
Thanks for the information, Zacharias!
I have several Orthodox friends (both Russian and basic Eastern Orthodox), but matters of doctrine haven’t really come up in our conversations. I do know that Pope John Paul II and the bishops of the Orthodox Church essentially agree now that the two Churches are “two sides of the same coin” when it comes to belief, and the original schism was over a doctrinal matter that is no longer an issue (and hasn’t been since the Council of Trent!). The beliefs you describe are very similar to those I was taught as a Catholic; one of the Creeds we recite at Mass includes the phrase “He [Jesus] descended into Hell“. Catholicism, too, does not teach of Adam and Eve’s “perfection”, thus obviating the need to describe the Fall as some event beyond the simple lesson of disobedience.