Short for Wednesday Morning: Adam and the Dog

A nominee for an Academy Award for Best Animated Short, and a beautiful little film.  h/t Jordan Bloom.

We Had to Destroy the Bible to Save It

Last time I stated the postulates I’m starting with in order to move forward in considering the Fall.  They seem reasonable to me, in light of what has been looked at and discussed in this series over the last nine months.  However, I want to look at one alternative (which I reject) in order to elaborate on why I reject it and what I see as being problematic about it.

First, I need to correct something I omitted in my last post.  I gave my “postulates” for this discussion, but left out the most obvious and important one, the zeroth postulate, if you will, without which there’s no point in even having written this series to begin with.

0.  Science is correct in asserting the vast age of the Earth and universe, and the evolution of humans from lower animals.

Comment:  As noted in my update to the previous post, this is not a postulate properly so-called; but it’s solid enough.

Corollary:  Any theology which does not take 0. into account is to that extent erroneous, and need not be taken into account.  Therefore, for example, young Earth creationism, anti-evolutionism, and so-called Intelligent Design as presented, are non-starters.

Having set the stage, let’s move on to look at a popular account of the Fall that seems fairly popular in some circles and discuss its ramifications.

Some Postulates

Not geometric postulates, though!  This is a sort of continuation of my last post in this series, as well as trying to articulate what I’m postulating, what I”m trying to avoid, and why.

First, as I said way back here (allow me the luxury of quoting myself without seeming a total egotist!):

Nasty things–evils–existed long before humans came on the scene.  Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, predators, disease, pestilence, cancer, and so on have been around for eons.  Thus, any system that posits their existence as coming after the Fall of Man is not going to work.  [E]vils or Evil can’t be blamed on Eve’s apple.

Without claiming to give knowledge from on high, I suggested a possible (and in my mind, not unreasonable) theory as to the origin of pre-human evil, here.

For reasons that I’ve elaborated on in this series, as well as in the previous post, I think it’s hard to maintain the idea of Original Sin as a discrete, specific transgression by a particular individual or couple at a particular time in history.  Therefore, theories of the Atonement that are based on the traditional concept of a literal Adam, Eve, and Fall must be reworked and overhauled, perhaps massively.  Summarizing this,

1.  The evils in the physical universe are not caused by the Fall of Man,

2.  which could not have occurred as a discrete act by a specific person or persons.

I think these are fairly sound postulates, though I want to discuss objections to number 2 in an upcoming post.  The following two postulates are more speculative and will be revisited, but I’ll state them simply for now:

3.  Man was originally good in intention (metaphysically or from a supra-temporal or aeviternal perspective), if not temporally and/or historically, and this original metaphysical goodness was marred, if not temporally and/or historically (lots here to unpack, but let it be for now).

4.  Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection brings atonement to humanity (though how this is done is not yet clear, assuming one rejects the literal Genesis story.  Once more, let it be for now).

This is where I’m starting from as I try to pick my way forward on the Fall and what that may or may not mean.

Update:  It is Lent, so I will repent of my sins against mathematics.  I used the word “postulate” very loosely.  In mathematics (my field) a postulate (or axiom) is the most basic point from which one builds a proof or argument.  Postulates are not proved because they cannot be proved–they’re self-evident.  For example, postulate number one illustrated above (the illustrations show Euclid’s Postulates) is that two points in a plane give a unique line.  If one understands what “point”, “plane”, and “line” mean, this postulate is self-evident; it must be true; it can’t not be true.  The points above are certainly not like this.  None of them are self-evident, and given what we know about the origins of the cosmos, 1 can be reasonably proved (remember, postulates can’t be proved).  It would have been better to call these points my starting points or my basic assumptions.  Oh, well.

I also realized that I should have added another basic assumption; but I discuss that in the next post in this series.

Adam, Eve, and Monogenism: More Perspectives (and more of the same)

It’s been some time since I’ve written on the Fall.  Partly, I got a bit burned out on the topic after the many, many posts I did.  Another factor was that I changed my mind on some aspects of the issue.  Finally, after fifty-four posts, I concluded that I didn’t have a conclusion yet.  I still don’t, quite.  However, in the process of surfing about the Internet, I ran across some articles discussing just this issue–to wit, how does one square modern knowledge of human origins with the (apparent) Biblical requirement that all humans descend from a single priaml couple–and I thought it worthwhile to point them out and briefly discuss them.

It’s interestingly appropriate, given the content and image for today’s Rubá’í of the Day.  Since I schedule the Rubá’í of the Day posts months ahead of time, I rarely remember what the specific verse for the day is or what image I selected for it until it posts.  I was thinking about this post last night, and when I decided to write it today, lo and behold:  there were Adam and Eve in today’s rubá’í!  I certainly can’t ignore such a synchronicity, so on we go!

Miracles, Evolution, and Metaphysical Frameworks

I actually ran across this on my extension hard drive while looking for something else.  This was originally written as a response on a web discussion–I think it was at Beliefnet, but it’s been awhile, and I’m not sure (I sometimes write drafts for posts that I know will be detailed and lengthy, and save them for later posting).  The discussion was with someone defending so-called Intelligent Design–with which I have no truck.  Beyond that, I don’t remember the specific context; but I thought that with a little bit of editing, the following might be of interest.

The context is a discussion with a person who was trying to defend Intelligent Design (ID).  He was arguing that evolutionary theory–which he insists on calling “Darwinism” necessarily implies a metaphysics (as opposed to a procedure).  In other words, it goes beyond mere methodological materialism (which is a necessity for any type of science) and necessarily implies metaphysical materialism (a whole separate kettle of fish).  In this regard, he argues that the intervention by God assumed by ID is no different from miracles, and to reject it is to reject miracles a priori.  In any case, while I do believe in miracles, I think that’s only possible if one already has metaphysical commitments that imply miracles; one cannot use them to “prove” ID or any religion or metaphysical view in general.

The following is my response, slightly edited.  The sentences in italics are relevant statements from my interlocutor’s post which I’ve quoted in the process of making my response.

Consider: you’re at the Wedding at Cana–you’re a scientist who has time-traveled back with equipment. You examine the water–it is basic or acidic, hard or soft, pure or with impurities, etc. etc. You look at the jugs–they’re made of such-and-such type of clay, glazed or unglazed, etc. etc. Now Jesus tells the servants to take this water and fill the jugs. You look in the jugs and see they now contain wine. You analyze the wine–such-and-such percent alcohol, tannins, etc. etc. This was a miracle, but both before and after you have ordinary materials obeying all natural laws to any possible observation. In other words, the wine may be 10% alcohol, or have tannins, sugars, and other congeners–but there is no experiment you can perform on it that shows it to be of Divine creation. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, in the aftermath of a miracle, the materials conform to the ordinary, everyday run of things. There is no “residue of holiness” that can be perceived! Even during the miracle itself, you can’t detect Divine power coming from on high, through Jesus, and into the water.

Thus, the antecedents and results of the miracle are perfectly normal. The question is, what about the miracle itself? That’s the kicker, and that’s where interpretation comes in.

Quote for the Week

The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief—call it what you will—than any book ever written; it has emptied more churches than all the counter-attractions of cinema, motor bicycle and golf course.

–A. A. Milne, quoted in  Simpson’s Contemporary Quotations. Simpson, James B. (1988).Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.

I am a practicing Catholic, so I’m not quoting this as an attack on Christianity or Judaism.  I do have ambivalent feelings towards the Old Testament, as I’ve detailed in my series “The Pretty Good Book“.  I’d certainly agree with Milne regarding the misuse or simplistic reading of the Old Testament.

Excursus: John Scottus Eriugena

The greatest philosopher of the early Middle Ages, John Scottus Eriugena, was interestingly, a universalist.  I’m not going to talk much about him myself in this post.  Rather, I want to quote extensively from this excellent essay on Eriugena at the website of  professor of philosophy Leonard O’Brian.  I will refer back to this in developing some ideas in the next couple of posts on heaven, hell, and universalism.  The emphasis in the following quotes is mine.

Eriugena’s metaphysics of emanation produces an optimistic understanding of human nature. In Christian thought usually, the fall requires the resurrection whereby Christ cleanses us of our sins. Christianity generally teaches that (1) God created humankind in His image; that (2) this integrity between Imager and imagee—between God and humankind—did not preclude that the imagee might disobey the Imager; (3) that the imagee did freely choose disobedience; (4) that this act initiated a universal falling of man and woman from their Imager; (5) and that man and woman were thereby weakened, so that only the gracious action of God can save the imagee from sinful inclinations. Incarnation and resurrection constitute this gracious action. Christianity is pessimistic about human nature since regeneration depends essentially on its external source.

In contrast with the usual Christian conceptualization, Eriugena draws on Neo-Platonism. He thus creates a tension. He wishes to develop a fully Christian philosophy. Compared to much of Christianity, however, Neo-Platonists are optimistic about human nature.

**********************************************************

From the Neo-Platonic perspective, while the objects of human knowledge—the objectively real ideas, ultimately, the Good or the One—transcend the physical world, we human beings have the potential, through reason, to transcend the physical world ourselves.

How would Eriugena, both Neo-Platonic and Christian, resolve the tension between optimism and pessimism? In his view, the fall and resurrection consist of cosmic processes of differentiation and return to unity. While he conceptualizes the cosmology in four parts or phases, the parts are really one: God, the uncaused, causing the Word or Christ; wherein the primordial principles emanate into the realm of stones, plants, animals, angels, and human beings; these last, the human beings, contributing the further differentiation of gender through the fall; whereupon the Word, Christ, returns to God, unifying man and woman into genderless humankind; and, through humankind, the entirety of creation, returns to unity in the undifferentiated One. In the end, all will be saved, saints and sinners.

C. S. Lewis on the Old Testament

I alluded to the following in one of my earlier posts in the series “The Pretty Good Book”.  I finally found my copy of C. S. Lewis’s Miracles, and located the quote, which is in a footnote in Chapter 15, “Miracles of the New Creation” (page 218 in the Harper San Francisco/Zondervan paperback edition I’ve got).

A consideration of the Old Testament miracles is beyond the scope of this book and would require many kinds of knowledge which I do not possess.  My present view—which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction—would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History.  This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history (as Euhemerus thought) nor diabolical illusion (as some of the Fathers thought) nor priestly lying (as the philosophers of the Enlightenment thought) but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination.  The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology; but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology—the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step of the process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.  Whether we can ever say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter.  I take it that the Memoirs of David’s court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.  It should be noted that on this view (a) Just as God, in becoming Man, is ‘emptied’ of His glory, so the truth, when it comes down from the ‘heaven’ of myth to the ‘earth’ of history, undergoes a certain humiliation.  Hence the New Testament is, and ought to be, more prosaic, in some ways less splendid, than the Old; just as the Old Testament is and ought to be less rich in many kinds of imaginative beauty than the Pagan mythologies.  (b) Just as God is none the less God by being Man, so the Myth remains Myth even when it becomes Fact.  The story of Christ demands from us, and repays, not only a religious and historical but also an imaginative response.  It is directed to the child, the poet, and the savage in us as well as to the conscience and the intellect.  One of its functions is to break down dividing walls.

The boldface is my added emphasis.  It touches very felicitously on something I’ve noted (but not as effectively)–that is, that the Old Testament was revealed to a savage, barbarous people in a savage, barbarous time, and that this should always be remembered when we try to figure out what lessons to draw from it. Too many, not realizing this, try to justify atrocity, nastiness, and horrible behavior of every sort because they read the Old Testament literally, with no subtlety, nuance, or recognition of the issues Lewis describes here.  I will return to this at a later point on a post I’m planning on a specific Old Testament story.

Picking and Choosing: The Old Testament

 

Having looked at the New Testament, and discussed some aspects relevant to the Old, I want to look at my view of the Old Testament more particularly.

Back in my post on Marcion, I said the following, with added emphasis:

Reading [the Bible] at the age of forty-eight is very much a different experience.  Things such as the plauges and destruction God sent against His own people (Numbers 11:33, Numbers 16:1-35, and Numbers 25:1-4), the (lauded) behavior of Phineas (Numbers 25:5-9) which causes God to stop the last-mentioned plague, the mandates to kill all the men, women, and children in various cities in Canaan when the Jews return from Egypt (Joshua 6:20-27, 8:24-26, and 11:10-15, among others)–and that’s just in the parts I’ve re-read so far.  There’s plenty more nastiness to come, too–just for a couple of examples, check out 2 Samuel 24 and 2 Kings 2:23-25.  Examples could be multiplied quite a bit.

The point is that I’ve decided that I do not like the Old Testament as a whole very much at all.

I am not a Marcionite.  I do, however, find his view more viscerally and emotionally appealing as I read the Bible again after all these years.  I’m not quite sure why–perhaps I’ve grown more cynical.  Maybe suffering and the general messiness of life have become more real to me and I have thus become less able to blithely tolerate a supposedly loving God who seems not only to be OK with this but who seems actively to perpetrate it with distressing frequency.  In many ways it would be very easy for me to just jettison the Old Testament altogether (whether that would entail leaving the Church would be another and even more complex matter) and cast my lot with that of Marcion and the other teachers (mostly, but not exclusively Gnostic) who held similar ideas.

I cannot do that, though.  That would be the easy solution.

Picking and Choosing: The New Testament

Having discussed the ultimate basis of my beliefs, I want to go on to see how they concretely affect my understanding of the Bible, of Christian doctrine, and of the teachings of the Church.  We’ll start with a look at the New Testament.

Christ, in his Incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection, is, as I’ve said, the center, the axis mundi.  His life and teaching is most systematically described in the Gospels, so I put them first among all the documents of the Bible.  I am aware that they are among the latest parts of the New Testament to be written.  I am also aware that they are the culmination of a long process of oral transmission, theological reflection, debate, writing, translating, and editing, over many decades.  I am aware that they are not straightforward narratives of the facts as they occurred, and that some of the incidents may have been duplicated (e.g. the miracle of the loaves and fishes or the cleansing of the Temple) or may even have been partially (or completely) theologically motivated fiction (e.g. the Infancy narratives).  Finally, I’m aware that not every saying attributed to Jesus may be authentic; and that some non-canonical sources, such as The Gospel of Thomas, may possibly contain authentic sayings.