Adam and Eve

[Himalaya]

( this a question which arose from the Alpha thread, but I've taken it outside)

As I understand it a lot of the trickier questions of Christianity - the idea of of sin, the problem of evil and why god doesn't intervene, and the idea that God had to send his son to earth and then have him die to atone for our sins - all go back to 'the fall' I.e. the story of Adam and Eve , the serpent, the apple, original sin inherited down the line etc...

I understand that plenty of Christians don't believe in the literal creation story - but say it is a metaphor...but what I don't understand is what it is a metaphor for? It seems so central to all the other parts of the religion, but it gets skated over in modern times since it is so far removed from what we now know of the big bang, the origins of life and evolution.

What does 'the fall' mean if you don't believe in Adam and Eve etc...What do the different parts of the story - the apple, the knowledge, the nakedness, the garden etc...mean?

Apologies if it's an ignorant question.

"But surely the Adam and Eve story, and the rest of the old testament is not just viewed as the pre-scientific ideas of some ancient people (like Zeus on Mount Olympus) but as part and parcel of the Jesus story? I mean Jesus's coming and dying is linked to the idea of original sin, is a seen as fulfilling prophesies made in the old testament etc..."

OK... Let's run with the 'relationship' idea for a minute. So the story of the Fall is part and parcel of the Jesus story precisely because Christ acts as a mediator in the messed-up relationship between God and humanity: Christ shows us how to restore the perfect relationship that in the story Adam and Eve had with God before they ate the fruit (that is, a way to realise the potential for a relationship with God which isn't tainted all the (big and small) stuff we do wrong on a daily basis).

Or you could use a distance analogy... When we behave badly we distance ourselves from God, just as in the story Adam and Eve are physically distanced from Eden (kept out by the angel with the fiery sword). Christ lets us back into God's presence. In the Adam and Eve story, it's God who throws them out of the Garden, but in fact we are the ones who choose to separate ourselves from God. But Christ means that this separation is not final and once-and-for-all (as it is presented in the story of the Fall); rather, there is always a way back...

But I don't think that really gets to the heart of your questions, Himalaya, since I don't really see the issue as being to do with evolution or earthquakes or illnesses. For me, the world just is, and has evolved as science teaches us (and I'm not an expert on that - as you've probably guessed ). For me, the issues that are raised by the story of the Fall are all to do with how we live in this world of ours - which is both wonderful and terrible, generous and cruel - in relation to one another and to God.

But these are the thoughts of someone who's neither a scientist nor a theologian, so probably misguided on both counts.

I'm with you on your interpretation, Totally.

Thanks Dandy, Totally, Madangel. Was a bit worried I was just pissing everyone off with annoying atheist-on-an-Alpha-course questioning. But if you are still interested let's keep going.

So it sounds like the Adam and Eve question is a red herring in terms of thinking about god as creator. I guess what I am really asking about is how you as theists (as well as Francis Collins etc..) reconcile belief in a creator god and what we know about evolution.

The basics of Christian theism then are that God (1) created the universe (2) is good (3) has a special relationship with human beings as individuals. Is that right?

And if you accept evolution the idea is presumably that god somehow lit the touchpaper, set the underlying laws of physics and watched it unfold (at the same time being all-knowing, non linear etc..presumably knowing how it would turn out?)

My problem is, not as you say Dandy with with waste of sperm (!) or even with loss of species, but with the pain, anguish and misery routinely felt by sentinent, conscious, compassionate individuals. This is not just an accident or contingent on human choices. If you believe there is a god who chose evolution as his mechanism to create us then it is part and parcel of the design.

Humans would not have evolved as good parents if generations of individuals hadn't suffered the death of an infant. Humans would not have evolved as inventive problem solvers if so many hadn't died of hunger, humans would not have evolved as loyal community builders if we didn't live in environments beset by risk, conflict, predators and limited resources, humans would not have evolved to care for our bodies and for the sick and weak if illness wasn't horribly painful (this doesn't suggest that these are reasons why individuals should be made to suffer in this way, our goals as individuals are not to further the evolutionary process, and if it was really masterminded by an all powerful god that loves us as individuals surely he could have gone about it another that way...?)

Similarly rivalry, infidelity etc.. are not just not just human choices, they are key mechanisms that have driven evolution. Without them 'we' wouldn't have turned out like this. So to say that god 'created' us this way through evolution but actually had strong views that we really should act in another way seems to set up an inescapable contradiction.

Why would a loving god create a world like this? It seems quite sadistic.

Dandy you say that this may be the only physically possible option. But that does beg the question who made the rules like this. It just seems inconsistent to say that a god who can create the universe, read minds, perform miracles, extract personalities and memories from the physical brains that give rise to them etc... is so constrained by the laws of physics (who created them?) that they could not create humans without torturing them in the process.

Or you say (Dandy) again that without pain and suffering life would be a Truman Show style sham. Well maybe so, but then isn't that true also of heaven - which theists argue is more important and lasts infinately longer than life on earth ? Or indeed, with that reasoning, what is the point of industrial progress, medicine etc...by that reasoning would we be better off with more suffering?

I don't rcognise your picture of 'ultra darwinists' not valuing human life and well being or thinking that people should be driven by the demands of 'the selfish gene'. That would mean you could use that argument to condone rape for example, or killing of sexual rivals ('i was furthering my genes' interests, your honour') I don't see any 'ultra darwinists' doing that.

Theism says that the mechanism of our creation and the source of our sense of meaning and moral code come from the same place (god). Thats what gets you into this pickle. Evolution does not explain 'the meaning of life' just how it came into being. We make our own meaning. Without an idea of god there is no need to try to read morality into natural history. In reality the universe is neither cruel nor kind. It just is, and we are here by happy accident. Totally, you seem to be saying that in your post, but then just totally partioning this knowledge from what you think about god.

Just because the process that led to us being here was not conscious or moral or forward thinking doesn't debase the fact that we are.

oops! wrote that offline. didn't realise it was quite such an essay.

Hmm, a long post with lots in it. I haven't much time right now to delve into some of the questions and thoughts you have, but from the last couple of paras, I need to say that I didn't say ultra-darwinists didn't value human life or well-being, or that they pursue the selfish gene at all costs. The natural conclusion to the selfish gene notion is that the gene's perpetuity is the thing that matters: of course everyone believes people matter too, but when discussing whether huge amounts of life and death (and some pain and suffering inbetween and mass extinctions etc) have been worth it, or whether this process of evolution is a pretty wasteful way for God to have decided upon, theism says "every bit of creation matters and has mattered", in and of itself, not purely because it was serving an evolutionary purpose. Darwinism in its extreme form can reduce everything to its function.

Your last para. You say evolution doesn't explain meaning. "We make our own meaning." If we actually do this, without God, I would say our meaning becomes meaningless: what does "cruel" and "kind" and "happy" mean, or "Morality" if we make up our own meaning? Where have these notions come from? After all the arguments about altruism being explained away by kin and peer connections, I have read them and I don't actually credit them, and they don't account for much of what we do as moral behaviour.

Okay, going backwards up your post, you ask why God would constrain himself by the laws of physics. (BTW mention of God performing miracles is a tricky sentence; some believe God intervenes, but I don't; but what we call "miracles" do happen). He would limit himself to give choice and freewill into the system, if you will. Yes, that allows for pain as well as pleasure, for hatred as well as love, for death as well as life. God is bound by the freedom he gives his creatioon because to do otherwise would not be giving freedom. What does "pain-free" or "suffering-free" mean? That people live forever and don't die, leaving others to grieve? That people accidentally slam their finger in a door but it doesn't react or swell up or give any pain, even though the tissue is damaged? That we have unbreakable bones, or that the linings of our throats don't seize up with irritants and the wrong sort of weather or food? We either have full freedom, which involves the risk of pain and injury or suffering, or it is no freedom. It doesn't mean God is causing the pain though.

Dandy - OK, i'll try a shorter (...ish) one....

I think I've probably confused things a little because I've tried to describe evolution as if god exists (which I think gets you into a tangle of mutually incompatible ways of thinking).

So a bit of clarification in response to your first para (1) The natural conclusion of the selfish gene notion is not that its the gene's perpetuity that matters (to whom?) - it is that it is the gene's propensity to be perpetuated that drives evolution (2) There is no evolutionary purpose. Evolution has no purpose (3) An 'ultradarwinian' (which we haven't defined but I assume means something like 'someone who thinks that evolution excludes the possibility of god') doesn't ask if it has been worth it - because who would it be worth it to? Its like if a plate falls on the floor and breaks, you don't ask the plate if it was worth breaking.

Your second para - really? This is kind of breathtaking....if you weren't religious you would think it OK to commit murder, sexual abuse, robbery, fraud etc... Can you not understand why these things are wrong (because they hurt other people) whereas other religious rules such as not eating bacon are fairly arbitrary?

You've said that thing about 'explained away' before (about consciousness) as if, if something has a natural explanation it is not real or it is some kind of trick. I don't know what this means. Understanding about neurotransmitters, synapses etc.. does not make 'pain' any less real.

Finally, on the pain thing....I think you are skirting the issue a bit with your examples. People don't ask why oh why did god let Grandma die peacefully in her sleep at 90 after living a long and fulfilling life, do they?

Himalaya, we are talking in broad generalities on this thread: so referring to my second paragraph as breathtaking is taking a very broad attempt at discussing this, as a very specific indictment. I did not say that without religion, it would be okay to commit murder. I was asking how morality arises. I believe it arises from God: not from religion in itself; but from God. That means, to me, that our world has morality because God exists. I am not at all saying that if you don't believe in God, you can't be moral. I am talking about where does our sense of morality come from? For me, not from genes and meaningless random interactions.

"Explained away" - re consciousness and altruism: some scientists have made great research and attempts to work out these two things, and some have come up with tentative answers. Not everyone believes they are correct. No-one has yet come up with any answers as to what consciousness is, or why it is; similarly, with altruism, there are many issues that still are unanswerable. Yet some of the more vehement scientists (who are also speaking as non-theists) insist that all human behaviour can be attributed to the demands of the gene. I don't agree. Of course there are some things in science that have wholly scientific explanations and rightly so.

When I used the phrase "was worth it" I was very clearly trying to address your points about "how can God be so cruel? What is all this suffering for?" type questions, or as Mr Dawkins would ask, "why create a wasp that lays eggs in a caterpillar that eats the caterpillar alive?" I am quite aware that to someone who doesn't believe in God, evolution has no purpose at all, has no meaning, no ultimate outcome.

Ultra-Darwinism is broadly that which is centred on the gene and its successful transfer into the next generation as the prime driver and focus of evolution. Proponents would be Dawkins, Dennett. It isn't a term that has anything to do with God, although most of its proponents, I would guess, would not be theists.

I would suggest that I am asking questions as well: what would a pain-free, suffering-free world look like? How would it work? Where does our morality come from?

Apologies if this is a very brief post... am in the process of getting ready to move back to the UK after 6 months abroad, so between goodbyes and packing time is short and stress is high.

As someone who has come (back) to faith relatively recently I am sure that there are inconsistencies in my view, Himalaya. However, when I said 'the world just is' that doesn't mean that I don't think that God created it, just that I think that that creation is something way less tangible than the verb 'to create' makes it sound. I believe in evolution. But I believe that God is both at the start of and all through (because God is not temporal) that process. If the world 'just is'; God 'is' (minus the 'just'!) in the world. I see him in it; I don't see him controlling it.

Am going to have to hit 'post' and run, sorry. But thanks to all (but esp. you, Himalaya and DandyDan) for an interesting discussion.

Totally, good luck with the move, hope it goes well (...and come back to the thread when you get time, it may still be going....)

Dandydan, this discussion is getting multi-stranded. I am just going to pick up on one strand for now (gotta get back to work..) but I will come back on your last question later.

On the morality question, I have got my breath back and am trying to work out what you mean. When you say there is no morality without god I guess you mean one of two things,either;

(1) Morality can not be explained as arising from the natural characteristics of being human - having consciousness,intelligence, foresight, empathy and a degree of self control. Without god you can imagine that there could be conscious, intelligent etc... beings for whom it is quite ok (and not psychotic) to torture, kill, enslave others etc...

or

(2) Morality arises from the characteristics of being human - consciousness, intelligence etc.. but one or more of these characteristics cannot be explained by natural, physical means but has a supernatural origin ("the soul"), which can only be explained by god.

I guess you mean something like (2) right? (1) is fairly indefensible.

So then what you have set up is a scientific question - are there aspects of consciousness etc.. that can only be explained through supernatural means? As you say, science is continuing to develop, that is what it does. But as it does it tends to find more and more natural explanations for things which people used to think of as supernatural, not to come up against boundaries beyond which biology cannot be understood in physical, naturalistic terms.

Saying that a question is 'unanswerable' as in we haven't got the answer yet is not the same thing as saying it is 'unanswerable' and must be down to supernatural explanation.

As to consciousness, I am not a neurobiologist, but I would say there are some pretty solid answers at a basic level which which rule out the supernatural explanation as a dead-end.

What is consciousness? - it is a property of living brains.
How do human beings become conscious? - their brains develop along a plan laid down by their genes (and influenced by their environment, including prenatal environment) Why did consciousness evolve? - it has adaptive benefits for survival (e.g. learning, flexibility, collaboration)

Scientific research is focused on putting the details on these bare bones, but I don't think there are any serious scientists anywhere who have got to a point where they say "you know what there is no possible, physical explanation for [whatever aspect of consciousness] it is reasonably likely that that god intervened in evolution here/this bit of consciousness is not at all related to the physical processes in the brain - it is reasonably likely that it must be a property of the immaterial soul.

So I think (2) is on fairly shaky grounds.

Or there is (3) For believers the idea of morality is tied up with the feeling that there is a god. The whole thing has no basis in external reality, it is just a powerful metaphor for 'all that is good'...which is a position consistent with science but I am sure is not quite right from a religious point of view.

Yes, in so far as we have limited space here to discuss, and I have very limited time, I would say 2).

I don't believe in a God of the Gaps - because we haven't worked out a human "answer" to how consciousness works, what it is, etc, doesn't mean we won't, I know. I'm with Totally's comments just above. God in and through creation. A materialist explanation is not all there is to life and the universe; there is more - not just a feeling but a conviction held by billions, that there is more to life that reductionist theories that reduce all existence to meaningless combinations of atoms and actions. There is meaning in the universe.

I doubt I'm going to have much more time to discuss at the moment: I'm swamped with Xmas things-to-do of children, OH and church. But I'll look in and comment where I can, if the thread continues.

Haven't contributed to this thread yet as DandyDan has been doing it so well, and as a non-scientist I cannot hope to hold a conversation in a 'language' that makes scientific sense, nor will I pretend to fully understand the details of the discussion above.

But, that said I would agree with Dandy and Totally, and would also add this; that there is no reason (so far as I see it) why our understanding of what God is, what 'his' nature and purpose is, and what our place in the universe / our relationship with 'him' is cannot develop and evolve in line with scientific understanding. Two points arise from this - first, that the use of inverted commas around 'his' and 'him' are very deliberate. Theistic religions all anthropomorphise 'God' - historically and anthropologically it has been our best way of understanding 'him'. However, I think most people within modern theistic religion would agree that 'God' as he is presented and understood through religious texts and doctrine is a contruct - a way of presenting him that helps us to conceptualise what / who he is.

Secondly, as our scientific understanding of the universe, its origins and nature, the evolution of life on earth, the nature of our psyche and consciousness, the working of our brain etc develops in both breadth and depth, so too can our understanding of what this 'God' is. I too often get the impression from scientific / atheist commemntators that their impression of God (or rather of people's belief in a God) is something that is fixed and unchanging. This isn't true. Certainly, ideas or who and what God is change more slowly than other areas of knowledge and understanding, but that does not mean that they do not change, or are incapable of changing.

This is something that struck me most clearly during the discussions following Stephen Hawking's most recet book / comments that theories of the origin of the universe now completely disprove the existence of a creator-God. Well - they don't! They might raise further questions, and areas of discussion / explanation, but they do not disporove it. And if (IF!) the idea of a Creator-God is ever disproved, does this also 'prove' that there is no such thing as 'God'? Again - no. Even if 'God; is 'only' a product of the human consciousness, it doesn't alter the fact that it is there and affects lives in a profound way, on a daily basis.

As I've said, I am not a scientist, and (as I've said before elsewhere) I think it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion of theism in scientific terms because the language of science and the language of 'God' are so very different.

Hope I haven't made too much of a numpty of myself with my theories

Hi Mrs Cadwalladar.

Don't think you've said anything numptyish. I really don't think that this conversation has to be had in particularly scientific language, or with detailed understanding of the science. I mean, it starts with what a childs knowledge of space, and the questions they ask. How do you reconcile the knowledge that the universe is really really BIG and that earth is just a teeny tiny portion of it, with the idea that the purpose and meaning of the universe is all to do with the relationship between the creator of all this and one species that hasn't been around for very long?

I dont think you can just say that language of science and the language of god are very different (or at least i dont find that answer satisfactory) They both seek to explain the same universe, no? And religion makes plenty of claims that are about apparently real, historical events which are the kinds of things that can be understood 'scientifically' - not in the lab, but with clear definitions, propositions, evidence, coherence, etc...

I don't think atheist commentators are unwilling to take on board the idea that religious ideas can change, but I do think they get frustrated with the fact that religious language seems designed to avoid tying down concepts and claims and allowing them to be held to any kind of rational examaination.

It seems like religions do make supernatural claims about a creator god, miracles, people dying and coming back to life, life after death etc.. and say they have specific knowledge about god and how 'he' wants people to live their lives. But then when you ask questions about a specific issue people say 'no silly, not creation like that' it's more something more metaphorical and mystical. Which is why I asked the original question about Adam and Eve. Most Christians seem to believe that they are metaphors but that Jesus was real. But the two stories are so tied together, and I wondered how you make sense of that.

Religions do seem to want to have their cake and eat it - avoiding being tied down to supernatural claims, but then claiming to have access to a special truth about the world and a supernatural way of knowing it. To be honest the language of religion seems closest to the language of horoscopes and homeopathy - tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that makes them come back for more, but don't be specific enough that they can hold you to it.

Richard Holloway says something along the lines of what I was thinking, only more eloquently www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/dec/19/12-steps-compassionate-life-review