The Fall, Evolution, Redemption, and Christianity

Great Debates
21

BTW, welcome to the Straight Dope, StarWas, and nice first post.
Getting back to it, could I expand on the dilemma slightly? IANAC, but I thought the point of the story is that humans need redemption because Adam made a choice to sin. If there was no choice involved, then requiring redemption would be unfair, since God made us this way. If there were no Adam, there would be no choice, and thus no requirement for redemption.
Now, if you accept evolution, then there is no single man who would serve as Adam. Thus, even if there is a point where you could say humans had the capacity to judge right and wrong, there were many humans around, and no reason why the “sin” of one should tarnish us all. This is a problem even if you aren’t a literalist.

I think this comes from the fact that the story is a just-so story, explaining why a loving god would make us have to go into work on a Monday. Adam had it good, but screwed up. This no more makes us sinners than the fact that my kids have to work because I was too dumb to buy Microsoft at its IPO makes them sinners.

22

What a great way to update the parable! :slight_smile:

Star Was: This thread which I started last summer, explains my interest in the subject. I never felt like I got a good answer…

23

Redemption from the normal human state for the purpose of living a better life.

Why? Redeem is a complex word, and only the traditional theological definition requires a soul.

24

My hypothesis is that the “Fall” represents the point in evolution where human ancestors were no longer bound by their animal instincts and could make choices. And the experience of Jesus provides a template for making good choices.

25

Which begs the comment, “I obviously ment the theological definition.”

And to which I’d respond: the existence of an immortal soul is about where you cross the line into faith and belief, and I don’t know of any factual answers, just my own personal beliefs. But that’s a deeper issue that goes way beyond reconcilling evolution and Christian belief.

26

Agreed.

And, per my original proposition, believing in an immortal soul, for which there is not one piece of scientific evidence, requires that one abandon science. I didn’t mean that one would have to abondon science altogether, but that one would have to abandon it in order to maintain one’s beliefs.

27

I’m also, or was before retirement, an EE. It is eminently possible to be a competent engineer and accept engineering principles and at the same time believe that every word in the Bible is literally true.

Engineering applies the output of science but I don’t agree that it is science. An engineer can believe that engineering methods were directly handed down by God without any lessening of the ability to use those methods.

I don’t see how it is possible to be a complete scientist in the sense of requiring evidence before acceptance and still be religious to the point of accepting on faith alone.

28

Yeah, you can be a competent engineer and still be a fundie.

But I was offering my education has evidence that I wasn’t ignorant, not as evidence that I believed in science to the exclusion of all else. I had to take plenty of science classes. I may not directly apply the principles in my day-to-day life as an engineer (especially because I ended up in IT :)), but I still had to take plenty of science classes (physics comes to mind) that contradicted biblical views. In all likelyhood, the fundie engineer did too. Ignorance isn’t the same as disbelief.

29

Is a complete scientist similar to a true Scotsman? :slight_smile:

30

Well, gol-du-du-durn I jest never was smart enough to get my head around it, you know. Being a superstitious idiot like all religious folk are, and obviously incapable of logical thought like higher beings such as yourself.

Of course a really intelligent feller mighta noticed my use of words like “possible” and thought maybe he shouldn’t assume what people do or don’t believe and inserting words like ‘need’ into people’s mouths.

31

I have to say–I’m in seminary (a real, accredited, master’s level seminary, not some back-woods Bible college, which occasionally also go buy the name “seminary”) and I think this is a great question. Anyone who thinks there is an easy answer to this (“Oh, that’s only a problem if you’re a literalist.”) hasn’t really thought it through (or has a very liberal theology that has rejected any remotely traditional understanding of Jesus). On the contrary, there is a fair amount of work being done in theology on just this issue. I don’t have an answer, or even a list of possible answers, but I will point out that scripture is tantalizingly vague on this.

The traditional understanding of Genesis 2 is just what others have said–that it explains why we have to suffer and die in a supposedly good, God-created world, and that it places the blame squarely on humanity for rebelling against God, thereby exhonerating God. This is, as the OP pointed out, incompatable with modern scientific understanding. It is hard to imagine how human sin is responsible for death and suffering, which were a necessary part of the world before human’s evolved, much less became self aware. Furthermore, it is hard to see how humans could have evolved naturally without a bent toward selfishness that (in self aware, social animals) inevitably leads to sin. Sainthood is not evolutionarily beneficial.

But look at the text more closely. The Fall took place just before humans became self-aware. It was a pre-condition, in fact, of self-awareness. Furthermore, sin did not originate with humans, but was, in a sense, part of creation. The snake (which only much later became interpreted as Satan) was called in the text as a creature “that the LORD God had made.” The story doesn’t answer the question it seems designed to answer! Sin isn’t God’s fault, but it isn’t quite our fault, either. Sin results from our choices, and we suffer the concequences, but we began sinning before we knew right from wrong. And the temptation to sin was there from the beginning, as part of the perfect world God made. This is frustratingly unsatisfying to me because it doesn’t tell me why there is evil or sin or suffering or death. It seems to, but the more I look at it, the less it actually tells me. On the other hand, it now seems to be a perfectly crafted allegory for the existential situation informed by modern evolutionary understanding. Pretty good for a hoary old fable!

32

Sorry. Among my several typos in that post was the one putting the Fall in Genesis 2 instead of Genesis 3. Just in case you’re reading along at home.

33

So, ultimately, the solution is not to take it literally. :slight_smile:

34

I think Alan Smithee did a pretty good job with this but here’s a few thoughts of my own.

I think the story of the Fall does a good job of recognizing the uniqueness of the human condition but only fumbles around at finding a cause for it.

The key part of the story (as others have pointed out) is that the Fall is precipitated by knowledge of right and wrong. In evolutionary terms it makes sense to recognize the fall as being symbolic of the moment that human beings became self-aware. As far as “bring death” into the world, I would suggest that it could be read as illustrating the moment that we became aware of our own mortality. There was always death, but but there was not always an awareness of it as being an inevitable event for every living thing, including us.

So as far as the human condition goes, it’s all there. We were as innocent as the other animals in the “Garden,” and then were became AWARE, not only of our own existence, including our own mortality, but our own actions and how those actions affect others. We became empathetic. We became aware not only of our own pain but the pain of others, and with that knowledge came responsibility. We were no longer animals. We knew what we were doing. With self-awareness comes accountability. With self-awareness comes sin.

The part of the story that I find unsatisfying and paradoxical is that Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit before they knew right from wrong. If they didn’t know it was wrong, how could they be culpable? This paradox carries over to the dawn of self-awareness as well. if the fall is the moment that humans became human, then the “fruit” implies that humans had to choose self-awareness, a choice which would already require self-awareness in order to be meaningful.

The story says that humans are different than animals. Humans once were innocent but now they KNOW and because they know, they are no longer blameless for their actions. The story also says that humans chose this condition but I don’t see how they could choose it without already being in it.

I think the storytellers felt they could not blame God, so they blamed man, even though it was paradoxical. the serpent may have been a device designed as an attempt to resolve that conflict. They eat they fruit because the serpent told them to,and then after they ate it it was too late. They already knew right from wrong and God (evolution) could not turn them back.

If the snake has an analogue to evolution (and I’m reaching here) it’s simply the will to live which drives evolution. We eveloved because we were urged on by a mindless urge to live and by the time we were aware of the dangers of that urge it was too late.

35

You seem to be assuming that the story was made up all at once, in some planned way. More likely, the story evolved (no pun…) over time, blended with other stories, and was never designed to be wholy consistent in the first place. Applying a modern logical treatment to this story almost certainly never occured to the people among whom it came about.

36

I’m aware of that but I’m talking about an overall mythological motif, not just Genesis. The story in Genesis is similar to other myths which follow the basic arc of humans innocnt-- humans eat or drink something-- humans fall/ get punished.

You could even deraw a prallel to Prometheus in Greek mythology who steals fire from the gods and gives it to man. Prometheus is punished in this story rather than humans (which makes him rather a “serpent” and a “Christ” figure) but it still follows the pattern of a teleological myth designed to explain human self-awareness.

37

BTW, when I said “storytellers,” I just meant all the myth makers in the aggragate. I’m guessing that the serpent may have been a later development in the story’s evolution.

38

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses everybody.

If the Fall was merely man becoming self-aware or the beginning of our understanding of right and wrong what is the point of Jesus? Wouldn’t this mean that Jesus’ sacrifice just redeems man to a state of ignorance? How would Jesus’ sacrifice overcome death? Wouldn’t this interpretation mean that man as a condition of his existence must die? And sin if he is self-aware? In this interpretation could Jesus really do what Christianity says he does?

39

I think Jesus’ role fits in nicely with what Alan Smithee and Diogenes wrote, actually. Once we became aware of our own mortality, we began to seek a ‘way out’ - a way to overcome the inevitable. That way would have to be via our ‘spirit’, or ‘soul’, or ‘essence’, or whatever else you want to call it. We cannot escape physical death, but Jesus’ sacrifice grants us spiritual immortality. That sort of thing.

Granted, I’m not Christian, or even vaguely religious, so I could be way off base.

40

I take the Fall as you say: a realization of good/evil.
And Jesus as a removal of (or internalization of) an ‘outside’ God.

Sadly, most see Jesus as more of an externalization (and literalization) of a separate (‘up there’) God.