So, a couple of evangelical scientists decided to concede that Adam & Eve were not real people and that the theory of evolution is valid. Of course, they are getting some pushback.
From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith,” says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.
“But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’ve got a problem,” Rana says.
Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it’s not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind.
“When Adam sinned, he sinned for us,” Mohler says. “And it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.
I don’t care about Christian doctrine and dogma. I only care about whether people do or do no respect science in a political setting. If you can’t accept evolution because it screws up your understanding of why we need a savior, then I don’t want you near a public classroom or any legislature in the country.
From the way this dialogue goes round and round with nothing much achieved by either side, you would never guess that there are many religious denominations, such as the Catholic church and many schools of Orthodox Judaism, that have no problem accepting Adam and eve AND evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
I am sorry to have to say this, but I observe that many progressives love the fundamentalist interpretation of religion. They love it precisely because it is so simplistic that it fits their own simplistic prejudices about religion. It “proves” that the entire realm of religion is ridiculous and unimportant. They steer clear of interpretations of religious thought that actually have substance. (This is not to say they would have to agree with them, only that they would be forced to actually think. Which is hard work.)
Hammer meet nail. When you consider that even the people who wrote the book of Genesis and had it as part of their holiest works did not believe it was to be taken literally, it really amkes one wonder why the fundamentalist (not evangelical) Christians need to maintain that. AS John Paul II said, th story of creation in the Bible is not to tell us what literally happened but to explain man’s relationship with God.
The far right has no capability to see nuance, and some on the eft suffer from the same affliction.
saying Adam and Eve were not historical human beings doesn’t negate the theology of “humanity created in God’s image” of Genesis 1. Besides, Eve isn’t mentioned in Genesis 1 and Adam is “human being”).
One can’t help but ask the simplest of questions, “So why does religion exist?”
The vastness of the night sky and the ugly permanence of death make people frightened and insecure.
BINGO!! You hit the bullseye dead center.
Ah yes and the sublime enticement of recognizing just how easily these elements can be used to enslave a race in dogma. The death of curiosity.
Gee, that’s a terrific summary, Joe.
I’m having greater difficulty seeing the humanity in people who would use biblical text to justify their desire to have our shared government become unconcerned with the welfare of others. This helps. I also make mistakes when I’m most frightened and insecure. I’m trying to grow, though. Many conservatives appear to be retreating into their prejudices.
Well yeah. But there are a couple of additional data points that need to be included.
So. As we evolved, “magical thinking” was included in our survival skill set. It’s not a bug–it’s a feature! And there really is a “necessity for faith”. In extreme pain or mortal danger, it is exceedingly helpful to cry out to this “otherness” to help you! It gets you thru these episodes when you might, otherwise, give up and die. Been there, done that & I’m basically an atheist. I mean, you can yell “Holy Joe! Be my strength!” and it works just as well as praying to Jesus. Yeah, you’re only talking to your subconscious but externalizing it works!
The point is: We do need this “magical thinking” to survive. It’s not just fear/insecurity and pretending to have control. It actually does give us some control over ourselves and our interactions with others.
Problems arise, of course, from projecting our ambitions, prejudices or preconceptions–the invention of religion around these phenomena. I don’t doubt that Saul had his moment on the road to Damascus when he suddenly perceived the “otherness”. The fuck-up was him pushing his hatred of women and gays into it. The foul-up is some shaman saying, “God told me to invade Canaan and kill everyone now living there.” Or Rick Perry thinking he should be president.
Personally, indulging in magical thinking has given me sublime moments of feeling connected to the whole universe and being so grateful that I LOVE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING! But, mileage varies. Just don’t scoff at the baby drowning in the dirty bathwater. That baby is a useful tool in the evolution of human consciousness.
That’s an excellent answer to why humans pondered a greater being but fails to explain the emergence of religion. Religion, being the man made part, serves goals manufactured by man rather than challenging observeers of the night sky to stop quaking and figure shit out.
I just got a Kindle for my birthday, and the first book/pamphlet I decided to read was Tom Paine’s “The Age of Reason.” He was so freaking brilliant:
Also, check this:
Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible’s evolution
The Bible is, in large part, nothing more than a hodge-podge of manuscripts which were copied multiple times by scribes, sometimes from memory, over a period of centuries. The changes and additions that were made over time number in the thousands. It is a completely man-made document.
From the article:
That’s exactly why they refuse to acknowledge that it’s true (the same with the story of Noah’s flood, which is also ridiculous…see the video):
”Both of our plans are batshit crazy, but if I can’t convince myself to believe this story somehow, then I might start to question other aspects of my belief in Yaweh; and I don’t want to start on the slippery slope towards a meaningless, worthless, atheistic life in only believing in things that make sense.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w
Mohler is correct. When one looks at the Bible from the standpoint of textual criticism then the whole idea of any of it being divinely inspired comes crashing down. And forget the whole inerrancy aspect. All that a “person of faith”, particularly a fundamentalist, has to do in order to destroy the whole foundation of their belief system is to actually read the Bible critically. It is fraught with contradiction and errors from end to end. Read it as a literary work. That is the only real value that it has. “Divinely inpired???” Forget it.
thanks for that link seabe-that is bloody brilliant…the genius of humor.
In other words, God in the image of man. Interesting how that inversion works. Just like Eve being created out of Adam’s “rib”.
There are in fact multiple creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. Rich in imagery. Low in what these days would be called analysis or even theory. They are what they are. It is folks like Fazale Rana who are making claims for a text than never made those claims for itself. In theological terms, they are engaged in idolatry of a book to justify ignoring the real needs of human beings. Jesus wept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_for_God
want to repost that explanation of why Obama’s plan was doomed?
It’s true, whenever I hear news of thousands of people winning their liberation from an oppressive lunatic, I find myself consumed with pettiness and a desire to find people on the internet to sneer at.
Good on ya, Libyan people. Glad we could be of some small service in your revolution.
Well said.
as i just posted, we’re probably going to find out whether order can be maintained very soon.
actually,I agreed with you.
Exactly. Which is why I have a problem with – as in, I find preposterous – people who take the Bible literally. It requires them to believe a half dozen impossible things before breakfast or their whole world comes crashing down. And that, in turn, leaves them susceptible to believing a whole lot of other impossible things. Might explain why so many of them have become political conservatives in the modern, post-factual sense.
Believing in things that are not factual/cannot be proved is a characteristic which could easily lead religious fundamentalists to become political fundamentalists (ie. Tea Partiers/John Birchers).
But then, what of the “rugged individualism” and “personal liberty” portions of Tea Party rhetoric? How does that square with the rejection of “rebellious choice”? Why would their obedience fail to extend itself to governance? Are these rhetorical planks just bullshit, or is it covered by the cognitive dissonance they practice daily thru their religious and political faiths?
I have opinions about the answers to these questions, but I’m interested in the views of Booman and all of you.
Double thinkers; those who simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.