tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post533478958337342423..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Is a literal Adam and Eve credible? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62834086670712756402016-08-20T00:20:35.135-07:002016-08-20T00:20:35.135-07:00Here is an analogy. Think of the spectrum of whit...Here is an analogy. Think of the spectrum of white light running from red through violet from top to bottom as <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Prism_rainbow_schema.png/220px-Prism_rainbow_schema.png" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Suppose you accept that any place in the spectrum can be assigned to one of the seven primary colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Then there must be a topmost blue, yes? But, on the other hand, suppose you think the transitions between the primaries are vague and indistinct. Then there is no topmost blue. Likewise, the Aristotelian holds that every living thing that ever existed has either a vegetative, an animal, or a human soul, and so some living thing must count as the first human. The Darwinian geneticist, conversely, holds that the transition from animal to human is vague and that therefore there cannot be a first human. Bonnette's project appears to be one of unifying or reconciling these opposing views. This isn't credible---the two views are logically incompatible. And this conclusion is independent of whether one favours Aristotelianism over Darwinism or vice versa.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69433604798486663162016-08-19T08:25:08.146-07:002016-08-19T08:25:08.146-07:00"... In a multiverse, such things are bound t..."<i>... In a multiverse, such things are bound to happen - in fact, they must!</i>"<br /><br />Or, in a more prosaic <i>uni</i>verse, it may be that my email inbox had notifications for responses from 'Hal' and 'B.Prokop' and 'David Brightly'. Meaning to open the one from 'B.Prokop', I accidentally clicked on the one from 'Hal'. Thinking I'd opened the one I meant to open, I read the content but didn't glance at the handle, and composed by response to that content before coming to VR's blog.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10431281556007559802016-08-19T07:07:35.965-07:002016-08-19T07:07:35.965-07:00" I have no idea how..."
It was a once-..."<i> I have no idea how...</i>"<br /><br />It was a once-in-a-trillion-years random quantum flux, rearranging the ones and zeros of your comment by sheer chance into a superficially intelligible yet utterly contrary to original intent faux posting.<br /><br />In a multiverse, such things are bound to happen - in fact, they must!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-535524231891756482016-08-19T06:40:06.542-07:002016-08-19T06:40:06.542-07:00Oh, my! I have no idea how I confused B.Prokop wi...Oh, my! I have no idea how I confused B.Prokop with Hal. I'll never forgive myself for that!<br /><br />At least not until tomorrow.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90166078746454609262016-08-19T06:37:50.477-07:002016-08-19T06:37:50.477-07:00B.Prokop, missing the point: "You do realize ...<b>B.Prokop, missing the point:</b> "<i>You do realize there is a difference between 'original human pair' and 'original human being', don't you?</i>"<br /><br />You do you realize that you can't have an 'original human <b>pair</b>' without first having an ontological 'original human <b>[individual]</b>', don't you?<br /><br />Why do you have this seeming need to protect <i>scientism</i>?<br /><br />========<br /><b>David Brightly:</b> "<i>Ilion gives us a nice example of how the discrete categories of the Aristotelian forms collide irreconcilably with the continuities of genetics.</i>"<br /><br />What Ilíon actually gave us is a nice example of how Darwinism "collide[s] irreconcilably" with <i>logic</i>; to put it another way, that Darwinism is <i>illogical and incoherent</i>.<br /><br /><b>David Brightly:</b> "<i>Ilion gives us a nice example of how the discrete categories of the Aristotelian forms collide irreconcilably with the continuities of genetics.</i>"<br /><br />Gentle Reader: <i>think about what David Brightly has said here</i> (and think about the intellectual dishonesty of what he has said): he is agreeing with me -- while trying simultaneously to pretend that I am in error in saying it -- that "<i>To say, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo" rel="nofollow">There Was No First Human</a> -- which claim *is* what naturalism </i>does and must<i> assert -- is *also* to say, There Are No Humans Now</i>"<br /><br />Of course, we all know why David Brightly has a need to protect <i>scientism</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1007534199315848152016-08-19T06:23:16.193-07:002016-08-19T06:23:16.193-07:00Ilion gives us a nice example of how the discrete ...Ilion gives us a nice example of how the discrete categories of the Aristotelian forms collide irreconcilably with the continuities of genetics.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75646071417612824092016-08-19T05:41:23.610-07:002016-08-19T05:41:23.610-07:00It's probably time to close down this "di...It's probably time to close down this "discussion", 'cause there sure hasn't been any dialog. Hal has been told multiple times that there is no requirement to read Genesis literally, and even shown the citation from the article where no less than Bonnette himself (the author of the premise) explicitly says so. Yet Hal continues to repeat that "his claim depends on a literal reading". <br /><br />I'm reminded of an anecdote science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once told. He was quietly sitting near the back of the room as a lecturer expounded upon the supposed meaning of one of his stories. When it came time for questions, he rose up and said the lecturer had gotten everything wrong, and that the story did not at all mean what he said it did. Somewhat miffed, the lecturer demanded to know who Asimov (who had not yet identified himself) was for anyone to take his opinion seriously. Asimov responded "I am Isaac Asimov, and I wrote that story." The lecturer responded, "Well, just because you wrote it doesn't mean you know what it means!"<br /><br />Seems like Hal has taken a page from that lecturer's notebook.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86532973434295238602016-08-19T05:12:17.630-07:002016-08-19T05:12:17.630-07:00"So even if there were very strong scientific..."<i>So even if there were very strong scientific evidence excluding the possibility of an original human pair ...</i>"<br /><br />It's logically impossible for there to be "very strong scientific evidence excluding the possibility of an original human [being]" <i>which *also* happens to be true</i>.<br /><br />To say, <a rel="nofollow">There Was No First Human</a> (as the link to which SteveK earlier linked pretends to argue) -- which claim *is* what naturalism <i>does and must</i> assert -- is *also* to say, There Are No Humans Now.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4861858467307675282016-08-18T20:56:58.514-07:002016-08-18T20:56:58.514-07:00Well, OK, but that is not Bonnette's position....Well, OK, but that is not Bonnette's position. For him it's crucial to Catholic doctrine that the ur-couple existed. So he sets himself the task of reconciling three things: an ancient mythic picture of the origin of human sinfulness; the classical-medieval metaphysics of substance and form; modern scientific genetics. The resulting three-way train wreck is hardly a pretty sight.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54768174145960906062016-08-18T18:44:48.416-07:002016-08-18T18:44:48.416-07:00"So even if there were very strong scientific..."<i>So even if there were very strong scientific evidence excluding the possibility of an original human pair I see no good reason why a Christian should be troubled by that evidence.</i>"<br /><br />Neither do I. We are agreed on that.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51179701240572071002016-08-18T11:30:00.387-07:002016-08-18T11:30:00.387-07:00Obviously the scientific evidence can't suppor...Obviously the scientific evidence can't support that part. But that doesn't make it incredible. Science has been thought to have refuted the claim by being able to make a case against an original human pair, and if the article is right, the negative case has not been made. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16951588532137232572016-08-18T08:51:38.846-07:002016-08-18T08:51:38.846-07:00"The question I had in mind was the idea of a..."<i>The question I had in mind was the idea of a single original couple who broke their relationship with God.</i>"<br /><br />I agree. That's why I said that I've been swayed mostly by theological argument to accept them as an historical fact rather than just a philosophical construct (as which they remain very useful).B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91280932936399702362016-08-18T08:31:40.315-07:002016-08-18T08:31:40.315-07:00The question I had in mind was the idea of a singl...The question I had in mind was the idea of a single original couple who broke their relationship with God. The other details are, to my mind, window dressing. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12235914529970219492016-08-18T05:12:52.100-07:002016-08-18T05:12:52.100-07:00"But one can still see it as myth. Human natu..."<i>But one can still see it as myth. Human nature is sinful and human nature is inherited.</i>"<br /><br />That was my position on the subject for decades. But lately, I'm not so sure. Admittedly, I've seen nothing "scientific" to cause me to move towards a more theologically conservative view here. It's more a case of coming to terms with purely philosophical and/or theological arguments in favor of a literal Adam and Eve.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80016163073088772462016-08-18T05:08:31.818-07:002016-08-18T05:08:31.818-07:00Here is (the Catholic) New Advent article on '...Here is (the Catholic) New Advent <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm" rel="nofollow">article on 'original sin'</a>: "<i>Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. <br /><br /><b>From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin"</b> (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here ...</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41256798663772330252016-08-18T05:05:26.425-07:002016-08-18T05:05:26.425-07:00"... what better explanation could there be t..."<i>... what better explanation could there be than that there was once an original sin?</i>"<br /><br />While the term 'original sin' <i>may</i> be used to refer to Adam's sin, the doctrine (and term) 'Original Sin' is not actually referring to that sin, but rather to the claim that human nature itself has corrupted -- one might say, <i>infected</i> -- by sin, and thus by death.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89150613664501581682016-08-18T03:40:11.932-07:002016-08-18T03:40:11.932-07:00Well, clearly, one man's literal can be anoth...Well, clearly, one man's literal can be another man's metaphorical.<br /><br />Bonette offers a scientific defence of the idea that the entire human race is descended through a single couple---the eponymous 'Adam' and 'Eve'. Catholic doctrine has it that man's sinfulness is an inherited trait descending from Adam's act of ur-rebellion. This is a central article of faith and is taken quite literally. But one can still see it as myth. Human nature is sinful and human nature is inherited. If there was once a world without sin, and one hopes there might come again such a sin-free world, what better explanation could there be than that there was once an original sin?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30908495345457983992016-08-17T18:14:26.138-07:002016-08-17T18:14:26.138-07:00"It is because of that agreed upon understand..."<i>It is because of that agreed upon understanding that one is forced to interpreting Genesis literally.</i>"<br /><br />I do not see that at all. Why are we "forced" to do so? Because you say so? Even the author of the article we're discussing disagrees with you on this.<br /><br />We seem to be right back to where we were near the top of this discussion. This seems like a classic case of a nonbeliever insisting that the Holy Scriptures be read his way and no other.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88897018025347362372016-08-17T16:51:02.105-07:002016-08-17T16:51:02.105-07:00Well, the entirety of our disagreement appears to ...Well, the entirety of our disagreement appears to revolve around differing understandings of what is meant by a literal Adam and Eve. I say it means an identifiable first set of parents for the entire human race. You say it requires a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Until we can get past using the same term for fundamentally different concepts, we ain't gonna make much progress here.<br /><br />But for the record I have already (in my Aug 16th, 5:34 AM posting) provided the evidence that the author of the linked article does not agree with your interpretation, since he explicitly stated that it mattered not whether you read the Genesis account literally or figuratively.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13220703751285152292016-08-17T13:05:41.864-07:002016-08-17T13:05:41.864-07:00"So if someone claims that there was a litera..."<i>So if someone claims that there was a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ they should not be expected to take the resurrection accounts literally?</i>"<br /><br />Did you miss where I wrote that The Bible is composed of many different literary genres? The Gospels are not at all the same as Genesis, and need to be read and interpreted entirely differently. Would you read <i>Two Years before the Mast</i> the same way as <i>Moby Dick</i>? (In case you didn't know, one is fiction, the other is a memoir.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40523318249282521192016-08-17T10:04:14.869-07:002016-08-17T10:04:14.869-07:00"I'm rather bemused by how quickly these ..."<i>I'm rather bemused by how quickly these internet conversations can lead to such misunderstandings.</i>"<br /><br />But it was you yourself who introduced such misunderstandings. You wrote, "Unless the article is referencing the Adam that was formed out of the ground and the Eve formed from his rib then its claim of a 'literal Adam and Eve' is bogus." That, in and of itself, is an insistence upon a literal reading of Genesis. Why cannot one posit an historical Adam and Eve without demanding that Adam be formed out of the ground and Eve from his rib?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5633385922981614602016-08-17T10:00:01.232-07:002016-08-17T10:00:01.232-07:00"[B]y what criteria are you going to identify..."<i>[B]y what criteria are you going to identify a particular couple as Adam and Eve?</i>"<br /><br />I assume they would have been the first male and female to be recognizably human.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26368644178788983082016-08-16T13:43:48.555-07:002016-08-16T13:43:48.555-07:00Get it here
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/...Get it here<br /><br />https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5244649.pdf<br />SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24738678972123133722016-08-16T13:35:57.936-07:002016-08-16T13:35:57.936-07:00" An English file can be downloaded from here..."<i> An English file can be downloaded from here.</i>"<br /><br />Since when?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11192258705759394672016-08-16T10:21:18.464-07:002016-08-16T10:21:18.464-07:00If we say "God is our Father" what do we...If we say "God is our Father" what do we literally mean? Does even the most fundy of fundies think that this is literally true in what I call the lead-footed sense? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com