h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just stuck this on the CMB - anyone else want to play?

Hi All,
The board seems to be getting bogged down in literal Genesis vs Evolution.

Now I look at the bible and I wonder what the fuss is about. Genesis gives us two differing creation accounts - so which one do we take as correct, or do we harmonise the two into a single account?

Or maybe we follow a third way - that the focus of the account is not on creation per-se but to illustrate deeper truths.

Evolution is being presented in some quarters as an offense against God - but why would this be - evolution is demonstrated in the world - it seems therefore to be part of the nature of His creation - that members of that creation can adapt to meet their circumstances.

Of course, it can be argued that this is a result of original sin - that evolution, like death came with the fall. However, if that is the case, why was this fact not revealed until the coming of Paul. And of course without the fall there was nothing for Christ to save us from....

But then I don't hold with that view either. If original sin is such a problem, how come it took until several centuries after the birth of Christ for it ot be developed as a doctrine.

So what are the theological implications of rejecting a literal six day creation or its illegitimate offspring, day-age creation in favour of something that fits the evidence better. And what are the implications of rejecting the idea of original sin?

God Bless

Tim the Fat Ex-hippy

I still want to know: if the Genesis accounts are literal reports of events, who was the reporter? If it was divine revelation to a particular individual/group of individuals, why aren't we told who?

Sally

Hi there Hipster. <> What do you mean by play? Discuss gen v evol or compare recent menus? Tudor rules or free-for-all?

Last time I glanced there were well over 100 posts on the gen v evol thread and Cameron claims that he can't answer my posts because he is bogged down in 10 pages of gen v evol. That makes me sad. When was the last time the board has had a really forwarding discussion on good old Mary?

I'll give the gen v evol thread another glance.

There are several things which come to mind immediately.

FIGURATION
Both creation accounts are deemed by the RC Church to be allegorical 'figure stories with a veiled meaning' (NAB) the intent of which is not to teach science (scientia) but to teach religious values (sapientia). By nature then, they are figurative and are rightfully afforded literary (as opposed to literal) readings.

MODES OF KNOWING
I think it is critical to distinguish different modes of knowledge. The three I learned in Class&Bib were techne (skill), scientia (information), sapientia (what is the greater good).

One could apply these distinctions to evolution this way:

Darwin produced a body of scientia on evolution. Scientists since Darwin have produced various methods (academic approaches, technological skills) to increase the body of scientia on evolution. The concern of God is that we learn how to exercise sapientia (wisdom) in bringing to bear the scientia and techne arising from the study of evolution. The concern appropriate to this subject is NOT primarily focussed on the truth or falsity of evolution.

What I am talking about, folks, is that the more time we spend tilting at the windmill of creationism versus evolution the less time we spend on cogent discussions of stem-cell research, genetically modified food (flora and fauna), genetic modification of human capabilities for sport, war, biocybernetic links, extended space travel. And so on.

DEVELOPMENTAL CURVE
Hey! Humans were babes in the woods (literally) when these creation stories were first spoken. Surely we are required to suspend our disbelief as much for God as for Shakespeare?

QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE TO LITERARY ANALYSIS
Literary readings ask such questions as

1) what themes arise?
2) what patterns arise?
3) what was significant about these stories in the historical period in which they arose?
4) are these stories still significant now?
5) (and most usefully) what can be compared and constrasted between the two creation stories?
6) do the intended listeners differ with each creation story? Or are they (disturbingly) the same?
7) why do things happen at points on the time line which differ with each creation story? Can and should these differences be reconciled? what do these divergent stories say about the nature of reality? what can we know as a result of listening to these two stories and what is the mechanism by which we know it? what is the effect on the listener of having two divergent stories?

For a start. I would like to have a literary discussion for a change. The board has already flattened original sin.

I am not sure if the historical origins of certain doctrines are relevant. For me it is sufficient to say that certain doctrines arose fairly late in the game because we are on a developmental curve. Somewhere Jesus says that he will not tell us everything right away "because we cannot bear it." I am afraid I dont have the cite at hand. What this means is two things:

1) the Church can legitimately claim authority for teachings springing from (and not necessarily set out in) scripture.

2) knowledge, including knowledge of God is a growing and dynamic thing. It did not end at the Cross. The Cross was a new beginning, not an end.

All the best, ani.

I forgot a few things in my previous reply.

Re us being told about certain things fairly late in the game: I worry about this being a post hoc ergo propter hoc: one thing happened after another and therefore fill in the blank. You need to demonstrated a necessary cause and effect between the non-existence of a concept in a certain period of history and then the coming into existence of this concept at a later point in history.

Re the developmental curve. Often we are taught things initially which are either wrong or only partially correct. For instance we are taught Newton before we are taught Einstein. Does knowing Einstein invalidate studying Newton? No. Each has its particular context and application. Recently a painting teacher told me that he expected his History of Art students to be able to paint in all the styles specific to the major periods of European and Canadian history. Why? To understand where those paintings came from, the pigments obtained and processed to paint them, the subject matter which was possible or even able to be perceived; the objectives, abilities, and challenges of the painters themselves. I worry that many assess the creation stories from the point of view of 21st C Western middle-class eyes.

All the best, ani.

Hello Hip. Ok I propose a game.

A few steps back first. A few initial observations:

1) I have been to the Board! I am frankly more stultified than my part-time gorgon Jawseline.

2) These gen vs evol discussions ALWAYS revolve around the truth or falsity of each world-view.

3) The truth or falsity of each world view is

ONE BIG FAT RED HERRING.

4) BUT even if we decide to stick to an approach toward determining truth (or trueness) then there are many ways to do it.

5) I have just been reading some Popper on the net about versimilitude or truthlikeness

6) I propose we make a list of different logical approaches to apprehending truth and

7) that, using one approach per thread we set up a series of dialogues.

8) some dialogues may end up in culdesacs, but not to worry; we can just move on to another approach. The effect might be that some logical moves might rub off or better still that a love of Wisdom might ignite in the heart of some poor souls.

9) or the other hand, we can just keep flogging the same dead horse.

PS I like albert-ant find the board exhausting just for the sheer doggedness of the illogic. The gen vs evol debate, for the most part, seems to have gone like this:

I'm right, your wrong.
Demonstrate that.
I'm right, your wrong.
No you're wrong. I'm right because of a, b, and c.
Only a sinner would ascribe to a, b, and c.
a, b, and c are demonstrated in the Bible.
Not in my Bible.
That's because your Bible is missing this translation.
I don't recognize that translation. I only recognize the Bible.
Rubbish (repeated several times)
Satan has you in his grip and you are going to Hell.
Hell is other people.
That's not Biblical.
There are contradictions in the Bible. How can two opposite things both be true?
There are no contradictions in the Bible.
Yes there are; viz Gen 1 and 2.
Satan made you say that.
It is the natural order of things to augment and increase.
What's your point?
Evolution.
Lower life forms cannot create higher life forms.
According to who?
The Bible.
And so on.

I don't know how people survive on that board. I am exhausted and I have posted only short replies to strawmen today. I think I will watch CBC recap Canada losing yet another day of medals. I hope the synchronized swimming comes on soon. That always has me in gales of laughter. all the best. ani.

Well, I have to confess that the thread contains a certain amount of "tweaking the nose" of a particular poster on the board. Once again we have had the asertion that Christ's death was to eliminate Original Sin and that without Original Sin, His death has no meaning....A hyper-Calvinist view that I am hoping he will justify a little (as if!)

I also wanted to get away from the strawman that is creation vs evolution....

I agree that the stories are figurative/allegorical rather than factual and that a literal reading is not required. I also think that the account of the fall is a counterblast aganist a pre-existing babylonian myth to present a radically different view of God.

As regards evolution - again the classic creationist arguments are riddled with strawmen - for instance the classic Darwinian model of evolution no longer really applies. It also spills over into the social Darwinism of the late 19th & early 20th century which is an alotgether different phenomena.

Maybe we ought to be getting down to the basics underlying the debate - that is whether it is a theological necessity for us to be the result of a special creation or whether we can allow our special nature to arise from a more mechanisitic means.

So the challenge is to decide on what topics need to be discused to move the debate in the right direction.

Coming back to the phenomenon of Original Sin, I don't think it has been done to death - actually, I don't think that there has been a particylarly in-depth discussion of it....

I, like you, feel that revelation is on-going and that doctrine and theology is actually an evolutionary rather than a static medium (now this could be the basis of a very provocative thread ) I suspect that those who deny evolution will also deny any evolution of theology....in short that revelation like speciation is largely a static rather than a dynamic phenomenon.

When it comes to Original Sin, I think that a certain amount of scrutiny is perhaps in order, especially when viewing the more extreme models of it - it seems to posit a downgrading of the relationship of human-to-God and a radical re-alignment of the relationship. Indeed it can place an additional distance between human and God, which to me goes against the whole thrust of the incarnation of Christ. Given this, I think a proper contextual analysis is in order - but then again I think such a re-analysis of any doctrine should be undertaken on a regular basis.

As for a literary analysis, well, I am not probably the best man for the job, tending towards a more scientific analytical method. (I nearly got lynched in an English Lit class when my criticism of Jane Eyre ran to "Well, I thought it was crap" - I still think it is crap though, I just learned ot be more verbose in expressing it)

Putting that aside - I looked again at the two accounts in Genesis and one thing struck me about the two. The first account (1:1-2:4) offers more noble view of humanity - it places us at the pinnacle of creation: closest to God, the world was created for us.

The second account is more ambivalent - it certainly has a disunity established beteen male and female - it creates a wider gulf between female-and-God as between male-and-God. It also presents a God who is less in control than we would like - hasn't quite got the finger on the button, doesn't really know how the things He has created are gonig to react.... Of course this could be argued as a pointer for evolution - the sense that creation is a more dynamic process than envisaged and that there is a certain amount of self-determination in it. This doesn't fit as well as the first account with the later revealed character of God, but does have more resonance with the more arbitrary character in the ealrier books of the bible. I wonder how much the dichotomy between male and female is a product of the culture in which the story developed...

God bless

TTFEH

Hi Ani,

Well, as regards being told things late in the game....I do not have a great problem with that, however, as I indicated, my problem with some of the interpretations of the ideas of Original sin represented a shift in the requirements for salvation and the purpose of Christ, a shift that could leave those who were formally safe out in the cold.

I take your point about the painting - indeed, to understand anything you have to be aware of the constraints that the originiators were operating under, be it pigments or the intellectual climate or the state of knowledge. My concern is when a doctrine is once more raising a bar that had previously been lowered.

I think it is a pretty certain thing that we too often view all the bible through 21st century eyes - indeed I would say that is the big failing of fundamentalist Christianity. I have a history of creationism and it effectively starts at Darwin.

Essentially YEC demands a modernistic/scientific reading of the text that sees the surface message only.

TTFEH

Hi Ani,

Well I have been trying to get a few steps back on the board - this is the point of the latest thread - to ask why it is important. I suspect some of the most vociferous posters will not actually have a clue. All they know is it is important because they have been told it is important.

Essentially, as you say, we are in a clash of worldviews. Particularly on the creationist side, there is a certain rigidity of thought.

Essentially, I think the problem is that for all the talk of love, God is presented as a rather a rigid ogre who demands a very narrow approach. Our intellect is a result of the fall and has to be reined in. It was our tendancy to investigate that lead to the eating of the apple and therefore inquiry has to be rigidly controlled.

Yes, the board is rather stultifying - but that is because of the pantomime discussions ("oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't", "oh yes it is").

So where do we go from here.....

The worldview may be a red-herring, but one problem is that we are dealing with some extremely post-modern approaches which essentially reject any external referents (those apparent external referents which are taken as absolute are only taken as so because of an internal decision to do so).

Your comments on Popper remind me of a similar thing I read which contrasted reasonability and plausibility as the methods of evaluating a theory or a set of ideas. The usual criterion is plausibility (i.e. a socialogical phenomenon) rather than reasonability (an intellectual phenomenon) that defines the acceptance of an idea within a group.

So what are the methods of apprehending the truth that you can see?

TTFEH

Hi Hip. Thank you for your generous replies which I have c&p'd to my desktop. I have also read your new posts and thread. You raise many enlarging questions.

INJECT SOME NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS
My worry is that the gen vs evol discussions have taken on the character of desperation. The engineer in me says to step back and waste time until the dust clears. See my comments further down under 'your advice.'

CREATE A ROADMAP FOR DIFFERENT AVENUES OF APPROACH
(Men perish who lack vision.) I will review these latest skirmishes, do a bit of looking up, and get back to you with a proposal for a road map. Off the cuff, this road map looks like a regular (perhaps daily) 'new thread'; each thread proposing a distinct avenue of reasonable investigation.

DEFUSE THE ARGUMENT FOR TRUTH WITH ARGUMENTS FOR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Right off the cuff, I would say that it is 'wise' to provide some middle ground. Although certain posters have shown their hands early on in the game (as being unprepared and desperate), it is premature to berate them or sanction them until we have given them an opportunity to respond in an unprepared and desperate manner to the FULL GAUNTLET of arguments for reconciling the 2 creation stories found in Genesis with the theories of Darwin. Since the Mods have exercised virtually no leadership in any of the destructive skirmishes which have occurred on the CTMB, I suggest that we do. I sense that you (as well as I) have faith that a middle ground can be found.

LIMIT THE SCOPE TO CREATION, EXCLUDE ORIGINAL SIN
Right off the cuff, I recommend limiting the scope of the discussion to the creation stories in Genesis and NOT THE FALL. THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN is a whole other detailed and multidimensioned discussion. And it is a red herring as regards creation.

YOUR ADVICE: WHAT IS MY STATUS?
I am going to post anyway. However, it occurs to me that I have made some enemies on the board. To the extent that some posters do not even read my posts. I certainly alienated many with my Delwyn posts. (by the same token, it seems a fan club has sprung up and I have been given some award as being the Guardian of the True North and the Special Friend of Santa Claus). I alienated probably the same few with my scientific and biblical defence of unborn babies. I most certainly alienated more than a few with my vehement (and biblical) defence of the Catholic Church as regards the teaching Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire (that the ceremony (and sacrament) of Baptism is not necessary for salvation and that this opens the door for whole categories of the unwashed masses including unborn babies and those who have never heard the name of Jesus). I may have to poll the board to find out how many others would be interested in following us down various avenues of reasonable investigation. Any other suggestions?

God bless, ani.

Hi Hip. My responses to your thoughts follow:

ORIGINAL SIN
The conflict about original sin springs up from the following:

1) very narrow definitions of sin.
2) a lack of understanding of the original sin
3) a lack of distinction between original sin and other forms of sin.

Specifically: Am I born wicked? No, not wicked, only lost. Or broken. Or incomplete. The notion of nascent incompleteness seems like safe ground to start. Brokenness can then be inferred. From which a scenario of spiritual geography can then be proposed and the notion of 'lostness' gains stature in the investigation. Understanding original sin as 'lostness', in my opinion, lays the ground for accepting God's love for us and his neverending concern to find us and restore us to completeness: completeness as creatures whose nature is spiritual AND whose wellbeing is intimately tied up to the wellbeing of the rest of creation and to God.

Discussing original sin need not necessarily be limited to a Calvinist view. There are many other views from which to draw.

STRAWMAN
I agree with your assessment. It would be useful for you to

1) start a thread on the board setting out your view that creationism vs evolution is a strawman;
2) redefine 'strawman';
3) DEMONSTRATE why you believe (1).

FIGURATION
There are biblical bases defending the premise that the Bible or parts of the Bible can (and should) be read figuratively -- and specifically NOT AS SCIENCE -- and specifically NOT AS HISTORY.

DARWIN VS EVOLUTION
It would be useful for you to start a thread proposing a distinction between classical darwinism, social darwinism, and current theories about evolution. Drawing from literature contemporaneous with and predating Darwin, these distinctions might shed some light on the usefulness of bringing to bear literary (as opposed to historical and scientific) analysis on the creation stories.

THEOLOGICAL NECESSITY FOR SPECIAL CREATION
This could be one thread. I think the roadmap should be established first so that posters understand that Theological Necessity is only one of many avenues of approach and that desperation is not indicated.

YOUR COMMENT RE THE RIGHT DIRECTION
<> Yes. Hence, I proposed the road map.

ON-GOING REVELATION
There are Biblical bases for accepting that Revelation is on-going and not written in stone. This could be the subject of another thread.

YOUR COMMENT RE JANE EYRE
<>

The scientific analytical method does not concern itself with questions of merit. Only with

1) what is there
2) how it got there

As for Jane Eyre being crap: Early in my Class&Bib class, I stormed into my Professor's office, sat on his elk-horn chair and, on the basis of having read La Vita Nuova (The New Life for you Mods), indignantly declared Dante to be an idiot! Subsequently being forced to place LVN on the continuum of Dante's work, I realized that Dante was far from being an idiot.

I began to realize something else as well. The consideration of is-it-good or is-it-crap is an extremely unhelpful method of addressing a piece of art. Or even a piece of history. And certainly a piece of science. Literary analysis CAN look at the why's of literature. As art, it is inextricably tied up with OBJECTIVE. Note that I do not mean INTENT. Nor do I mean AUTHORIAL FALLACY. I mean OBJECTIVE. Examining literature objectively (rather than subjectively) releases us from the trap of judgment.

To wit: "I thought it was crap" is an analysis which belongs neither to literature NOR TO SCIENCE. Moreover, I suspect it is also not particularly useful to history.

YOUR COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS OF THE 2 CREATION STORIES

<> Yes.

<> No. The second account defines 'dominion' as 'cultivation and care.'

Are there common or disparate themes?
Are there common or disparate patterns?
How does the divergence between 1 and 2 AFFECT the listener?

<> Yes. Picture a bunch of knuckledragging hunters and gatherers sitting around the campfire. It is the end of a long hard day. They have eaten. They have celebrated a successful hunt. It is entertainment time. A story. So Mikey the Mouth pipes up. 'What is life?' He begins. No takers. 'What is death?' He tries again. A bit of nervous fidgeting.
'Who are you?' 'Who were you before you were born?' Who will you be after you die?' A lot of snickering. (Mikey is entertaining but weird.)

So Mikey tells Genesis 1. People drift off and Mikey takes a, well, break. And comes back in an altered state of consciousness. Then tells Genesis 2.

Our knuckledraggers are really rolling their eyes now. But the divergent nature of the two stories has their attention. The questions which Mikey posed before beginning his tales are no longer out there. They are in the heads of the knuckledraggers: self-determined (to use your words).

Fast forward to a Northern Lake. Mikey's descendant is kayaking slowly over water as still as glass under a luminous disc in a black starry sky. 'What is life?' she wonders, 'What is death? Who am I? Who was I before I was born? Who will I be after I die?'

To Whom does she ask these questions?

The effect of the divergent creation stories is to plant the seeds of Theology in the hearts and minds of the listener.

The Question is the fruit of free will.

The Answer is in the boolean algebra positioned among (1)Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and (2) the Tree of Life as follows:

1 or 2
NOT (1 or 2) (something else)
1 AND 2
NOT (1 AND 2)

Now I have to assemble my Canadian Tire bundle buggie and do some groceries or I'll die.

God bless, ani.

Hi Hip. Re yr comment <>

Raising the bar has the following effect: survival of the fittest.

In terms of consciousness, knowledge, wisdom, theology: why would God favour a doctrine which served a previous era quite adequately but which serves subsequent eras wholly inadequately? Everything evolves, even ideas.

The fear of one poster around evolution is the fear of change. Evolution is not about change. It is about growth.

Is it correct to say, then, that I am a lizard? Yes, if believing that my mother was a fish creates in me a wonder, love, and respect for all living things and therefore strengthens my ability to 'cultivate and care for' all living things as God intended me to do.

God is the consummate Teacher. He has instilled in our natures the love of Wisdom. At the same time He has posed many questions which seem on their face to be unanswerable, but which inspire and compel us nonetheless. For God to GIVE us the answers (as one poster insists He has done) would be to negate the nature of free will. The length, width, and depth of free will is only plumbed as a result of the Fall.

Does this mean that God does not worry, fret, and wring His Hands over us? No. He is like any good parent. Respectful of the individual dignity and worth of His children; yet worried sick that they are going to hit trouble big time; and hopeful that eventually they will 'get it' whatever 'it' is. I believe 'it' is 42, but I have forgotten the question. God bless, ani.

Hi Ani,

certainly there is little common ground - trying to establish some is like trying to pull teeth. Now we can adopt the strategy of wait and see, but at the rate some of these threads are moving.

However the fundamental problem, I have to say, is that there is a lack of critical analysis on the part of some of the posters. This makes it difficult to establish common ground, because of an inability or a reluctance on their part to analyse their own position.

I'm awating someone ot come and offer an argument for why literal YEC is a theological requirement. I suspect that it all going to come back that stock discussion about whether the bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.

Problem with establishing a roadmap, is that first we have to get a handle on the posters. Te resident moonie for instance is going to be a lost cause. Others will be more open, expecially if we can move away from the mechanics of evolution. I'm problably not the best one to open such threads as I have "form" on the board.

Original Sin may be another whole dimension, but it has to be addressed if we are looking at the for-and-against of YEC or literal creation as from certain fundamentalist perspectives, this provides the justification and purpose for Christ's sacrifice. By their argument, one has to accept a literal Genesis creation because that leads to a literal fall - if you do away with that then the meaning of Christ's sacrifice is lost. In other words, the whole of their faith structure hangs upon the literal Genesis creation -as soon as you undermine that the foundations of faith start to crumble.

I wasn't aware of offering any advice though. However, a few posts to set the direction of discussion wouldn't go amiss.

God Bless

Tim the Fat Ex-hippy

Hi Ani,

Well, we all have different views of Original Sin - certianly I have more sympathy for the Augustinian view that it carries with it no condemnation. Understood in a "mild" form it is a helpful doctrine.

As for me starting a thread on Darwinism etc, I would consider that a very dangerous course of action. I tend not to open up too many discussion outside of areas I am reasonably confident in.

Of course "It is crap" is a purely emotional response. However, unless one can get over that hurdle one cannot meaningfully analyse a text.

As regards the tow Genesis accounts, I think we will have to differ. To me it has a view of God that relfects the early part of Genesis and also reflects the nature of God in the accounts it is addressing - a more "human" God - in some ways arbitrary and capricious. Certainly not the transcendant figure of the later bible.

TTFEH

Hi Hip. Re your comment <> Yes.

The question what does art do?

One important thing it does is to provoke. The response of 'it is crap' to the provocation of a piece of art is only useful if such provocation is strong enough to be experienced as extreme discomfort by the viewer/listener/reader. The vlr in extreme discomfort may then

1)succumb to fear and withdraw (flee), or attack (fight)or
2)rise to the challenge and open his or her mind to larger experience (flow).

Our Moonie is in fight mode.

God bless, ani.

So you are suggesting that Gen 1-3 is not only figurative but prefigurative. I don't believe that I have read much on your views about prefiguration. But it would make a good thread. God bless, ani.