Ep. 87: On being human

[humanguy]

Also, the whole concept of science came out of the world view that the universe is real and governed by laws. This was a uniquely Christian concept and many of the early scientist were Christians.

Are you saying that the concept of science is a uniquely Christian concept?

[tirtlegrrl]

Tony wrote: Also, the whole concept of science came out of the world view that the universe is real and governed by laws. This was a uniquely Christian concept and many of the early scientist were Christians.

Yeah--governed by laws that God can break at his whim. Sure makes me feel more confident in the regularity of nature.

[ScottBarger]

Scott,

Where do you stand on Adam being a real person or the Creation story being metaphorical?

Sorry, I missed this question. I do no think the Creation story is metaphorical I think it is mythological (Ancient Near Eastern Cosmological Myth to be more precise). To read the Creation story metaphorically, one would understand the elements and plot of the story to symbolize some deeper or hidden truth. So, for example, Adam would represent human nature, the Tree would represent life choices, the snake would represent temptation, etc. etc.

I think the story is mythological, a term that is often misunderstood by conservative young-earthers to mean "false." I use the term to mean a story that communicates important cultural/religious truths the details of which may or may not be grounded in actual historical events (think "George Washington and the Cherry Tree" or "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"). I think the Hebrew Cosmology was written not only to give a concrete account of events that happened (God made a good world, and put his creatures into that world for a good reason) but to invest these events with theological significance.

So when the writer says that God made the world in six days and then rested on the seventh, the ancient Hebrew certainly would not have walked away thinking he had just read a historical account of an event (not the way we use the term "historical", anyway). Instead, I think he would have believed he read an account of a concrete event (God made the universe) that had been invested with rich, theological significance (and he did so in six days, resting on the seventh - a detail that would have clearly connected the concept of "God of Creation" with "God of Covenant" because of the importance of Sabbath within the Ancient Hebrew theology of covenant).

Does that make any sense?

[joekohr]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not clear if your saying you believe that Adam was a real person. I'm asking this question because in the podcast Humanguy asked about your thoughts on how religion came about. In previous podcasts you've said that you don't reject the idea of evolution, but I'm not sure how you view those sorts of origins. If you accept evolution then there must of been tribes of people that developed their own religion before Adam and Eve ever came into the picture.

[ScottBarger]

I am not sure. I think something like Adam and Eve happened. But I am not sure how that fits with evolution. I think there was something like a primal set of human beings who rebelled against God and in some way introduced sin into the world.

[yjoeyh]

Another thing to keep in mind is the importance of genealogy in ANE culture. I agree with Scott that the stories are most certainly part of ANE cosmological mythology. It is possible that the stories themselves were originally used as a device for keeping the genealogies straight and as accurate as possible. Of course there would most likely be gaps since the point would not have been to 'fill in the blanks' keeping details on every generation, but rather a 'connect the dots' connecting significant characters throughout the record. So in my opinion it is much more likely that people like Adam and Noah were very much literally real people than it is that the events that surrounded their lives in their stories (i.e. the flood) happened in a literal sense, or at least not the way our minds try to image that they happened.

[mitchellmckain]

I frankly see no problem with taking the story quite seriously as a story of real people who actually existed as long as we see it as a story brought to us through an oral tradition which added on mythological trappings (magic and symbols) and homiletical elements (7th day of rest). I see no conflict with evolution because I think their are indications in the story that there ARE others in world refered to as the sons and daughters of men while Adam and his decendents are refered to as the sons and daughters of God, just as the Israelites elsewhere in the OT.

God picks people and initiates a relationship with them thus making them His children to which He gives commandments as every parent does with their children. In asking for the origin of humanity we have to point to a lineage. So is this simply a biological lineage where it difficult to draw any line or is it a relationship with the divine that can cross the lines of mere biological inheritance? The latter is much more consistent with the whole landscape of Christian thought.

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

I think you did a great job of explaining that Genesis issue. Very concise and to the point. It is interesting that Moses had access to all the myths of the various cultures in the region at the time and was responding to them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God embedded in those stories all kinds of truths. Spiritual, theological and historical, yet they were written to a non-scientific tribe of people.

We see now in science that humans are a recent event (100K +/-), with genetics showing a first Adam and first Eve, species that pop into the record and stay unchanged for long "aions" of time, and the universe started with time and space out of nothing, and life was introduced in stages, (days) etc... So as is typical of the Holy Spirit, who testifies in truth, the "myths" of Genesis are true "myths". The writer records a historical-ish record to a certain resolution. It is not a scientific work whatsoever, but because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it overflows with truths of all kinds.

There had to be a first breeding pair of modern humans...(Since there is no fossil record of gradual evolution for any species).

The mistake people make is to think it is a book of science, or, think it is total fable.

[Brad]

... I think the Hebrew Cosmology was written not only to give a concrete account of events that happened (God made a good world, and put his creatures into that world for a good reason) but to invest these events with theological significance.

So when the writer says that God made the world in six days and then rested on the seventh, the ancient Hebrew certainly would not have walked away thinking he had just read a historical account of an event (not the way we use the term "historical", anyway). Instead, I think he would have believed he read an account of a concrete event (God made the universe) that had been invested with rich, theological significance (and he did so in six days, resting on the seventh - a detail that would have clearly connected the concept of "God of Creation" with "God of Covenant" because of the importance of Sabbath within the Ancient Hebrew theology of covenant).

Does that make any sense?

Scott,
Thanks for the reply to Joe’s query (and mine).

So is the essence of your argument that, yes, the Garden of Eden and other Hebrew cosmological tales are true literally in those ways that we moderns can still accept, such as that there is, indeed, a world (and if one is a believer, that God made it)? But in the details that flatly conflict with modern knowledge, there must be underlying “theological significance” or some deeper truth? And the ancient Hebrews would have been able to sort out the difference you think?

It’s nice to think that there are, somehow, deep truths involved in these tales. But as Emery noted in another context in the podcast about justice, that sure takes a lot of work.

Of course, many other Hebrew bible passages discuss cosmology. Such verses mention the earth having a foundation, being supported by pillars, having ends and corners, and being fixed in place. Conversely, the sun and moon move around the earth (or occasionally stand still at God’s command). Of course, some of those verses are clearly intended as poetry, but some are not.

Taken together rather than in isolation, doesn’t the Hebrew cosmology suggest the sort of basic misunderstandings regarding the actual workings of the universe that a primitive people would be expected to have?
Are all those other cosmological passages, too, indicative of some hidden, deeper, truth?
Or might they simply be reflections of the worldviews and limited understandings of a primitive, pre-scientific, tribal people who simply heard and believed the tales literally?

If one believes the former "deeper truth" possibility, on what basis?
Might the only honest answer to that question be that a believer must, by some means, maintain the idea that the Hebrew bible – the law that Jesus later is said to have desired to keep and observe every “jot and tittle” – is “divine” rather than created solely by primitive people with tribal agendas? Accepting that latter interpretation, of course, would strongly suggest that the Hebrew deity was a human creation, too, so I know that’s anathema.

In any event, if the Penteteuch writers were capable of writing passages having “deeper or hidden” cosmic truths, especially if one believes that the God of the universe was guiding their minds and hands, other passages that seem ridiculous or offensive (but which don’t necessarily discuss cosmology) should also have hidden and deeper truths for us, or at least would have for the early Hebrews, no?

Then what of jots and tittles like Deuteronomy 25, my favorite part of which commands that if you happen to be “striving” with another man and his wife grabs you by the “secrets,” you have to cut off her hand.
Can anyone tell me what the deeper, universal truth might be there?
(I would also welcome humorous “hermeneutics.”)

Or how about the commands in Leviticus 21 that require that priests never shave and that anyone who is blind, crippled, hunchbacked, a dwarf or who has running sores or injured testicles can’t approach the alter.
It’s hard enough to figure out what the severely obsessive compulsive ancient Hebrew who came up with that stuff thought he was doing for his tribe, but what could be the deeper or hidden truth?

I have to say that it just seems to me that the truth of all of it is in plain sight, not hidden at all for anyone who isn’t absolutely determined to believe in a biblical deity. And no work is required beyond the basic skills we all use to assess every other set of ancient claims and tales, or put another way, good ol' Occam and his simple sharp edge. It seems like belief in a god makes it soooooooo much harder to sort the real wheat - much of which is wonderful - from the gritty and silly chaff.

One last thought about the “Law.” If a creator God – one who actually created the universe – was going to involve Himself in the creation of texts discussing cosmological matters, wouldn’t it have been a whole lot more useful if He’d given a basic description of how plate tectonics works instead of inspiring writings about chopping off a woman’s hand if she grabs your dangly parts?

[mitchellmckain]

It is interesting that Moses had access to all the myths of the various cultures in the region at the time and was responding to them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God embedded in those stories all kinds of truths. Spiritual, theological and historical, yet they were written to a non-scientific tribe of people.

So as is typical of the Holy Spirit, who testifies in truth, the "myths" of Genesis are true "myths". The writer records a historical-ish record to a certain resolution. It is not a scientific work whatsoever, but because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it overflows with truths of all kinds.

The mistake people make is to think it is a book of science, or, think it is total fable.

This is true. I agree.

We see now in science that humans are a recent event (100K +/-), with genetics showing a first Adam and first Eve, species that pop into the record and stay unchanged for long "aions" of time, and the universe started with time and space out of nothing, and life was introduced in stages, (days) etc...

There had to be a first breeding pair of modern humans...(Since there is no fossil record of gradual evolution for any species).

This however is not true. Science does not show a first Adam and a first Eve. It does not show that species pop into existence. Large populations do have stable gene pools and remain largely unchanged for long periods of time (and this is naturally what the vast majority of fossils represent), because evolution is a product of natural selection -- and that means death. When the evironment changes and mortality rates increase dramatically so that only a remnant survives, THAT is when natural selection plays a role and the gene pool changes. Yes these are changes that can occur relatively rapidly on the time scales that we are looking at. The evidence does support a rather dramatic reduction in the population of our species ocurring between 195,000 to 123,000 years ago as ice covered most of the world leaving only a remnant population on the southern coast of Africa. But none of this is evidence of the work of an ancient necromancer doing voodoo magic to make new species pop into existence.

I do not agree that life was created by magic in stages. I do not agree that modern humans came from "a first breeding pair". I do not agree that only Adam and Eve were creations of God and the rest of us were just products of sin. I do not agree that I and the people of today are any less of a creation of God than Adam and Eve. I do not agree that our humanity is a matter of breeding. I most certainly do not believe that what magically created golems did in the past could have anything whatsoever to do with us.

However, that does not mean that I do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, because I do. It does not mean that I do not believe that we have an inheritance from them, because I do. I just don't believe that this is a genetic inheritance.

[Brad]

I’d like to comment on two other things that were said on this podcast.

First, a comment on something that Jay / humanguy said in response to a question. If I recall Jay’s remark correctly, he said that he believed human beings to be fundamentally “good.” As I understand Jay’s statement, I agree with it strongly in two ways but have a different take, I think, overall.

As Jay said, he recognizes by virtue of his life experience and current multicultural surroundings that human beings – including those we might tend to think of as “different” in some way - are often far more caring, decent, interesting, understanding, and like us, than we would imagine. My own experience in this regard accords entirely with Jay’s, and the more I travel around the world, the more I find it to be true.
(This relates closely, btw, to my previous post above about religions and their emphasis on things - often trivial if not ridiculous things - that divide, rather than unite humanity.)

As only a minor aside, today a friend emailed a link to me of Jon Stewart’s comments regarding the Tucson shootings, which in part reflect on the same vital point.

Second, to whatever degree that Jay’s comments were meant as a contrast to the pathological and ridiculous religious idea that human beings are born driven to “sin” and that we are somehow defective as a species, I agree wholeheartedly, also. We are NOT defective and we do NOT owe supplication and/or fear to any imaginary deity because an imaginary legend says a woman ate a piece of imaginary fruit given to her by an imaginary talking serpent and then gave the fruit to her naked mate, dooming all mankind to suffer and to “sin” forevermore. To teach this sort of thing to children is, as far as I’m concerned, a form of abuse that is not widely recognized only because of its very sad frequency of occurrence.

Nevertheless, in my view it’s too simplistic to say that human beings are “fundamentally good.” While it’s surely true that a physically and psychologically healthy human being is not primarily inclined toward evil or “sin,” it’s also true that we humans are inclined by our nature / evolution both toward cooperation, kindness, empathy, sharing and other social tendencies that we generally consider positive AND toward a variety of self-interested behaviors that, especially when they become excessive, are seen by most of us as “bad.” All manner of sociological, psychological, and anthropological studies confirm these facts. That’s why I think saying we’re fundamentally “good” is too simplistic.

Last, Jay hit the nail on the head, in my opinion, when he said that it’s a conceit of religion(s) to suggest that it’s either the only or even the fundamental or original source of goodness within mankind or the only effective limit on anti-social or harmful behavior. Anyone with a shred of objectivity and curiosity about the world can readily see the falsehood in those notions.

I hope to make time to comment on a second thing from the podcast later.
That has to do with one of Scott’s remarks during the show.

[mitchellmckain]

Nevertheless, in my view it’s too simplistic to say that human beings are “fundamentally good.” While it’s surely true that a physically and psychologically healthy human being is not primarily inclined toward evil or “sin,” it’s also true that we humans are inclined by our nature / evolution both toward cooperation, kindness, empathy, sharing and other social tendencies that we generally consider positive AND toward a variety of self-interested behaviors that, especially when they become excessive, are seen by most of us as “bad.” All manner of sociological, psychological, and anthropological studies confirm these facts. That’s why I think saying we’re fundamentally “good” is too simplistic.

When I was in my first years of college someone asked my whether I thought human beings were basically good or basically evil and I responded good, while he said he thought people were basically evil. If you think that this has changed now that I am a Christian you would be wrong. It is indeed complicated. Even in Christian thinking there are layers to this. Yes we believe that there is something fundamentally wrong and Jesus' indictment, "you are of your father the devil" has a great deal of truth to it. But there is also a deeper truth, that when God created man, He said it was very good. If Christians have this idea that human beings are children of the devil, they also have this idea that this reality isn't right -- that we were in some sense kidnapped and that God is the real parent who will pay the price to get us back.

Among the TULIP Calvinist teachings, all of which I have rejected, is total depravity which according to one website says the following:

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

This is not completely wrong. There is something wrong with human beings and the problem is at the very heart of him so that even when he seeks to do good it is poisoned by selfish motivations. But the above goes too far only showing only one side of things. We were created in the image of God and even if there is a taint that spoils it, that divine image is still there. The point of these passages is not that we have no capacity for goodness but that we have morally degenerative illness that rules our destiny and and we are inacapable of curing that illness, and that people as a group tend to the lowest common denominator and the power systems that rule the world are susceptable to the worst influences. It is one of the problems of human government that good and righteous leaders tend to become surrounded by self-serving power mongers seeking to use the influence of these good leaders for their own benefit.

The Calvinists are wrong, people do choose and desire goodness all the time and they also choose and desire God all the time as well. If we are slaves to sin then we are not contented slaves though no doubt this is do to the work of God inspiring a belief that there is something better. Too often those who seek God or goodness, being inspired by men rather than God, do so from a heart that is poisoned by a self-righteousness so that it brings nothing good. But just as often God answers their tainted desire by calling them to something that is real, and I have seen abundant evidence that this is a step by step process and those brought to God at some point of their life, find God reaching down to them again to bring them to an even more authentic relationship to Him.

So what of the doctrine of original sin? Well the Eastern Orthodox have never accepted what Western Christianity has made of this, rather they have asserted that we suffer only the consequences of what Adam and Eve did and not that we are guilty and condemned by what they did. I certainly reject the understanding of original sin that says we are sinful from birth. Instead more like the Eastern Orthodox, I see it as the presence of bad habits of thought (and the lack of certain good ones) that stack the deck against us as far as whether we will sin or not. Thus when the Bible says that none can say that they have not sinned, I point out that all these habits have passed to us in the process of learning to speak and thus that what the Bible says here is literally true, that by the time we have the language to say such a thing, it is not something we can say truthfully.

Last, Jay hit the nail on the head, in my opinion, when he said that it’s a conceit of religion(s) to suggest that it’s either the only or even the fundamental or original source of goodness within mankind or the only effective limit on anti-social or harmful behavior. Anyone with a shred of objectivity and curiosity about the world can readily see the falsehood in those notions.

Yes I quite agree. But part of this is a confusion of their belief that God inpires all the goodness in the world with their personal experience that goodness came to their life through this religion they found, failing to realize that their religion is hardly the limits of God. In other words, we can believe that God inspires all the goodness in the world without thinking that it is only by believing in God or in some religion that this happens. In the context where this omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God is the creator of the universe and everything in it, to say that God inspires the goodness in the world does not even necessarily mean that we are incapable of conceiving and carrying out something good without divine intervention, it only means that God has contributed to making it possible through all the circumstances in which it occurred to us. You could say that the only difference from the evil in the world is that goodness is what God intends and seeks to inspire, and that we believe that if God's efforts were the only influence and factor in what happens then there would be no evil in the world.

[tonyenglish7]

Brad,

Code: Select all

Taken together rather than in isolation, doesn’t the Hebrew cosmology suggest the sort of basic misunderstandings regarding the actual workings of the universe that a primitive people would be expected to have?


On the contrary, the bible is unique in the claim that a non-finite non-material being created space and time, something just recently proven in science. The bible is the only spiritual book to describe the evolution of the universe in stages with the earth developing in stages. Other texts in the bible describe God folding out the universe, and basic as it is, it is unique in the way it reports in the language of the ancient people, actually true accounts of what really happened. No other religious book or writing comes close to the core truth principles of the bible. This is not a science book but it is not what you would expect from a simplistic ancient people as you described either. The signature of inspiration is found in the pages of this work. Those other tribes back then had the earth sitting on turtles and made every function a god. But in the bible you see laws of nature as designed. To us this is obvious but this was not that obvious in other world views and other religions.

[humanguy]

Brad,

Code: Select all

Taken together rather than in isolation, doesn’t the Hebrew cosmology suggest the sort of basic misunderstandings regarding the actual workings of the universe that a primitive people would be expected to have?


On the contrary, the bible is unique in the claim that a non-finite non-material being created space and time, something just recently proven in science.

Science has just recently proved that an infinite immaterial being created space and time? Let's have a look at what you've got to back that claim up, Tony.

[tonyenglish7]

Humanguy,

Science has just recently proved that an infinite immaterial being created space and time? Let's have a look at what you've got to back that claim up, Tony.

No, but yes.. Science has proven that all space and time and matter and energy started with the singularity at the big bang. The second law of thermal dynamics has shown that the universe is partially through using up the usable energy. Science has shown the universe is expanding so when we extrapolate backwards we see it started a finite time ago.

So, if there is no time or space or energy or matter, the only logical category left for causation is personal/mind.