Augustine and the Fall

The Augustinian view of the fall involved the belief that a change occurred in humans' physical characteristics, for example the development of being able to suffer physical pain. From that moment the condition was passed down genetically to all Adam and Eve's offspring.

The following extract from The Cambridge Companion to Augustine illustrates his views:

Adam and Eve’s fall ushered into the world original sin, which is not an event
but rather a condition (De pecc. merit. et remis. 1.9.9–1.12.15). It is the condition
imposed by God as punishment on Adam and Eve for disobedience.
According to Augustine the condition includes dispossession from a naturally
perfect environment, the loss of natural immortality and the acquisition of susceptibility
to physical pain, fatigue, disease, aging, and rebellious bodily disorders,
especially sexual lust (De Gen. ad litt. 11.32.42; De civ. Dei 14.16–19). The
condition is not only pathological, it is inherited, infecting every descendant of
Adam and Eve. The condition is innate, not acquired; as Augustine puts it, it is
transmitted by propagation, not imitation (De pecc. merit. et remis.
1.9.9–1.12.15). Augustine’s view, then, is that our first ancestors squandered their
patrimony and our inheritance and – as if that were not bad enough – thereby
contracted a suite of infirmities that is passed on to all their progeny.

It is quite an understandable position for the time, and it does follow on from a naively literal reading of Genesis 2 & 3, but it loads onto the text a great deal more than what the words actually say. This tends to come out in the interpretations of Young Earth Creationists today (e.g. vegetarian lions).

Take the example of the curse on Eve's pain in childbearing. The pain involved in this is a direct result of the anatomy of the female pelvis and the size of a baby's head. For there to be no pain in childbirth one of the two would have to have been dramatically different previously. So an Augustinian view of the fall involves a whole re-design of human biology for a start. This seems to be a great deal more than the passages are actually saying, and recent science (particularly the findings of anatomically modern humans that pre-date Adam and Eve) confirms that it isn't actually true.

So in other words, the fall needs to be seen in a much more figurative way than Augustine thought all those years ago.

Augustine time

These words seem to be ahead of their time - though I don't have the original context to hand to check:

Then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneous with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time - after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made.

St Augustine quoted in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees

Augustine had some interesting things to say about faith and science, though his views on 'The Fall' have led theology down a wrong turn.

Theodicy and evolution

The notion of theodicy has been one of the most debated and discussed topics in Christianity for centuries. Here's the Wiki-definition:

Theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") is a theological or philosophical study which attempts to justify God’s intrinsic nature of omni-benevolence (all loving), omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotence (all powerful), despite the existence of evil which would otherwise stand to refute God's existence.

One of the simplest ways of reconciling this problem is to recognise that God has given us freedom. We have a choice in how we act and the choices we make have consequences. We can bring joy or sorrow, so you could say that suffering is the cost of freedom.

This is quite a straightforward concept when we are thinking about human action, but what about nature?

Nature has its own freedom. The laws are set and from then on the consequences are what they are. Tectonic plates move according to the laws of physics. In doing so they release minerals into the biosphere and help produce fertile ground. They are also the source of earthquakes, volcanoes and subsequent devastation.

Evolution helps us understand this natural freedom as applied to biology. Life parades a spectrum that befits its freedom of expression, from the beautiful forms on the wings of a butterfly, to the venomous poisons of the bite of a snake.

The philosophical question is why is this freedom so important?

The primate family tree

Its not so long ago that nature's genealogies were constructed by the painstaking cataloging and comparing of anatomical features. Whilst this technique has to a certain extent been successful it is too blunt an instrument for dissecting out the fine detail.

The genetic revolution has changed all that. In this recent paper scientists have taken a close look at the entire primate family:

We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages

.

The story unfolds over a period of about 90 million years and covers many different creatures. Some, like the orangutang, are seriously endangered now. One of the stand out features of the primate group is their brains. Being remarkably cerebral they have a large brain:body size ratio, and of course of all the primates in all the world there is one whose brain is bigger than them all!

Theistic Embryology?

This quote picks up on a theme I've written on before, but its better!

Why is there no controversy surrounding theistic embryology? Dissecting critical responses to theistic evolution.

Those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm evolutionary theory are said to espouse a position called "theistic evolution." The view holds the peculiar distinction of being reviled by both hard-line creationists (who call it "appeasement") and prominent atheist commentators (who deride it as fallacious). I argue that these critics typically fail to articulate objections that are specific to the view. Most creationist critics of theistic evolution object to one or both of these characteristics of the view: 1) its reliance on naturalistic explanation, a feature common to all scientific theorizing; or 2) its embrace of "random" causal events, a feature common to myriad scientific explanations. Most atheist critics of theistic evolution object to its openness to supernatural explanation, a feature of religious belief in general. Such criticisms, valid or not, fail to address anything specific to theistic evolution. In other words, attacks on theistic evolution are usually attacks on theism or attacks on evolution, but rarely represent specific criticisms of the theistic evolution position. To better understand the controversy surrounding theistic evolution, I propose that critiques of the position be considered in light of a lesser-known position we may (with tongue in cheek) call "theistic embryology." Theistic embryology describes the thinking of those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm basic theories in human developmental biology. Although the logic is indistinguishable from that of theistic evolution, the view is uncontroversial and the term "theistic embryology" is practically non-existent. I suggest that critiques of theistic evolution be subjected to the "theistic embryology test." Most critiques that claim to identify weaknesses in theistic evolution make arguments that are equally damaging to "theistic embryology" and so fail the test. Critiques that fail this whimsical test are likely to be arguments against belief, or against naturalistic explanation, and should be considered as such.

(http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2009/05/theistic-embryology-gathering-storm.html).


Thanks to Ken Gilmore for the find.

100 up!

February has been a hectic month, hence the lack of activity on this blog, but as the calendar prepares to turn over once more I've noticed that I have made 99 postings since the blog started. It is very satisfying to look back at all the information and ideas that have been collected together since its inception concerning this important topic.

A big thanks go to those who read it and chip in with occasional comments. I'm acutely aware that a lot of what I write is simply someone else's ideas re-articulated, so, to everyone I talk to or whose books I read, as they say in Yorkshire, "Ta!"

Moral Development

An interesting idea to think about is that of moral development. The general thesis is that human society and civilisation has developed morally over time. Take as an example the slave trade. Historically the slave trade has been a normal part of society but now, in the western world at least, it has been abolished.

We are not talking about individual moral development here, in fact you could make a good argument that individual morality is in decline, but this is about society in general. The concept is relevant to thinking about anthropology from a spiritual point of view.

The differences between Old Testament and New Testament ethics have often been remarked upon, to the point where some have even suggested that the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New.

This is where the suggestion of moral development comes in. God remains the same, his principles never change, but their outworking depends on the level of development of the people. This is exactly the same phenomenon that we see in parents all over the world. A parent may want to instil in their child the principles of kindness. When dealing with a toddler they might utilise the 'naughty step' to help the child consider when their actions have fallen short of the mark. Yet for teenage children this technique is likely to be ineffective. A reasoned discussion is probably more appropriate for them (though you could try putting them on the step afterwards as a last resort!) Loud and vocal anger is another good way of telling infants of the seriousness of their wrongdoing, but it is rarely as effective with older children.

If we imagine human society as an individual going through childhood and towards maturity then we can begin to understand why God seems different over time. The Mosaic Law came at a time where the people had no formal justice system, but things are very different now. Most countries have very sophisticated systems in place to keep law and order – society has developed. This development is more acutely apparent when we consider early man as the product millions of years of competition and communities of humans thrust together under the principles of survival of the fittest. The baseline of moral man is pretty low. Yet slowly, and surely, God has led humanity to the point where 'at just the right time' Christ came into the world. Human civilisation was finally ready to meet Immanuel.

An interesting question to ask is why individual morality hasn't developed in the same way as society has?