Christianity

[Belinda]

If you have a theory of how the human race could evolve without there being an original mating pair, then say it.

So let's hear it. What's your theory?

Thinking this over it occurred to me that there could have been a pool of original mating pairs. Let's say a small community of one hundred persons. They would have to have been pre-homo sapiens, wouldn't they? (if one is developing theory within the scientific, anthropological model). Some former ancestors of homo sapiens who underwent some sort of evolutionary change that resulted in the new species.

I don't think that the Genesis story makes any reference to the antecedents to Adam & Eve (obviously).

It seems quite possible that within this entire group that certain changes (adaptations) occurred in various of them, even over a longish period of time, and that there was not one, specific mating pair which carried the day as it were (which is your view of what Genesis is about essentially). This seems to me more likely -- but obviously I am thinking in evolutionary-scientific terms.

Thus, those within this particular community, those who perhaps were the 'original mating community', changed or adapted in certain ways that turned out to be advantageous ('adaptive'). It might have taken a hundred thousand years for the adaptive changes to become established in that community. Who can say?

Also, the same evolution and adaptation could have occurred in other, nearby communities again over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. And then there could have been an intermingling of the advantageous genetic material between these groups.

Yet it still does stand to reason that there must have been one pair which, in competition with some other pairs, represented the strain that *won* the adaptation battle. Though again other groups and persons within those other groups may yet still have 'entered the gene-pool' at later dates to bring in the rich treasure of their hard-won adaptations.

AJ, your view of snake symbolism and especially the snake in Eden is interesting and enlightening. Why then do you engage in a conversation where the Creation myth is interpreted at a level of superperficial literalness?

[Dubious]

Give the alternate theory: how does one stage of the "ascent of man" turn into the next, with no mating pair?

But you've got nothing. You have no idea how that can happen.

I see! Now you say "no mating pair" as compared to "original mating pair". A world of difference. I realize it's hard for you to accept but I do understand the function of a mating pair in creating the next mating pair.

There is no alternate theory to evolution which can stand on its own. Plenty of mating pairs in evolution but where within those long transitions can one identify an original mating pair since mating always took place? Please tell how that could be ascertained!

Your alternate theory, being the true one of course, is a beginning as contained in the bible hence the necessity of an original mating pair. But would it be okay with you if Lucy and Ricky got married four million years before Adam & Eve replacing them as the original mating pair since you insist on there being one

[Immanuel Can]

I do understand the function of a mating pair in creating the next mating pair.

Tell me the story you believe, then.

There was a mating pair (and, of course, if there was an original stage of humanity, that would necessitate and "original" pair as well, so that objection is simply nonsense). But you say there was a mating pair. They mated.

Then what happened?

[Dubious]

I do understand the function of a mating pair in creating the next mating pair.

Tell me the story you believe, then.

There was a mating pair (and, of course, if there was an original stage of humanity, that would necessitate and "original" pair as well, so that objection is simply nonsense). But you say there was a mating pair. They mated.

Then what happened?

The mating never ceased and here we are. Don't know who my original grand mommy and grand pappy were but whoever they were it makes us related...oh woe!

[Immanuel Can]

...there could have been a pool of original mating pairs. Let's say a small community of one hundred persons...

All with exactly the right genetic mutation to produce the next generation of proto-humans? And none of them with a genetic makeup that would undo the genetic mutation for the next generation? And they all mate, and this produces the next generation, all with the mutational adaptive trait? And then the previous generation of proto humans all died out, without exception, and without producing any alternate kind of mutation that would take the "tree" in a different direction?

I don't think that the Genesis story makes any reference to the antecedents to Adam & Eve (obviously).

Well, other than God Himself, no.

Yet it still does stand to reason that there must have been one pair which, in competition with some other pairs, represented the strain that *won* the adaptation battle.

Then the other mutations and pairs are nothing we have to think about. They were maladaptive, and were eliminated by extinction. It's the pair that survived to which we can attribute modern man's origins, obviously.

And we're back to an original mating pair. If reproduction is the way evolution moves forward, there's really no other viable hypothesis.

[Immanuel Can]

I do understand the function of a mating pair in creating the next mating pair.

Tell me the story you believe, then.

There was a mating pair (and, of course, if there was an original stage of humanity, that would necessitate and "original" pair as well, so that objection is simply nonsense). But you say there was a mating pair. They mated.

Then what happened?

The mating never ceased and here we are.

Great. So now we're back to an original mating pair. We've come a long way for you to discover the obvious.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ, your view of snake symbolism and especially the snake in Eden is interesting and enlightening. Why then do you engage in a conversation where the Creation myth is interpreted at a level of superficial literalness?

But isn't your question, if it is expanded, how could I still continue to engage in the Christian conversation when so much of it has been infused with many many different levels of mythology? It is almost impossible to separate that element out.

It is because I hold to a kind of dualism. On one hand -- at an internal level -- I try to align myself with Jesus Christ as savior. But I still cannot be completely sure what 'salvation' is. It is not at all an easy idea. Yet I hold to it on an internal level.

But on the outer plane, and just like all of you, I notice all the various absurdities. In respect to that aspect I do not have a choice except to turn to the theopoetic. It brings all the essential considerations onto another plane.

I do not know what makes for a blessèd life and I do not know what sanctifies. As a matter of fact I'd appreciate it if someone would explain it to me! IC has said that it is 'to be freed from the consequences of sin'. But that cannot be all.

In respect to theopoetics see for example Amos Wilder (the brother of the novelist Thornton Wilder). He wrote an interesting book on the topic: Theopoetic: Theology and the Religious Imagination (1976) When I read it I thought it was marvelous. But there are others -- heretics in fact -- who take the ideas even further. David Miller for example (more here).

Many today have difficulty in relating to religious language. This can happen when we reduce religious meaning to a specific kind of spiritual experience or give undue importance to one aspect of human life. The reduction of life to human will or intellect is often accompanied by the turn to mystical practices and cults. Amos Wilder calls for a renewal of our deep religious imagination as we reflect on biblical faith and on the basic needs and longings of contemporary persons. This requires a new appreciation for mystery and for deep speaking to deep. Wilder assumes that the depths of biblical truth have scarcely begun to be plumbed and have untapped power to renew life even in our technological Western societies. This requires that we go beyond the objective, surface meaning to the deeper orientation: Before the message, the vision; before the sermon, the hymn; before the prose, the poem.

[Dubious]

Tell me the story you believe, then.

There was a mating pair (and, of course, if there was an original stage of humanity, that would necessitate and "original" pair as well, so that objection is simply nonsense). But you say there was a mating pair. They mated.

Then what happened?

The mating never ceased and here we are.

Great. So now we're back to an original mating pair. We've come a long way for you to discover the obvious.

Only in your mind. So what have I got to be ashamed of regarding anything I wrote? You haven't yet explained it. As mentioned, put up or shut up. But you haven't yet which proves you can't. You gratuitously threw it in because you didn't know what else to say anymore. If you really had a reason you wouldn't remain so reticent in explaining yourself; in fact, you'd insist on it and that is what's really obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

The mating never ceased and here we are.

Great. So now we're back to an original mating pair. We've come a long way for you to discover the obvious.

So what have I got to be ashamed of regarding anything I wrote? You haven't yet explained it.

Yeah, I did...a message ago. Go back and reread, if you want to know.

If you don't care to do that, don't expect me to care.

[Dubious]

Great. So now we're back to an original mating pair. We've come a long way for you to discover the obvious.

So what have I got to be ashamed of regarding anything I wrote? You haven't yet explained it.

Yeah, I did...a message ago. Go back and reread, if you want to know.

If you don't care to do that, don't expect me to care.

Point me to where you explained it so I know what you're talking about. That should be easy enough!

[Dubious]

It wasn't my intention to sermonize and no one has to listen to anything I say

You misunderstand me. I work with the idea that *all speech is sermonic* (based on Richard Weaver's ideas about rhetoric). Everything we say intends to influence. Even if you say "I have no interest in influencing anyone" it must inevitably occur. Whatever you think, whatever you believe, must come out in what you say, in one way or another. And is you speak, you must understand that you will influence.

From my perspective, I don't see it. Such influences as you claim occur rarely and sporadically on philosophy forums. Most kinds of influence are so tenuous as to be almost non-existent. Philosophy forums are meant to express one's views on subjects that seem interesting. Nothing more. There is no value; it's only a debating game which forces one to think...that being its main merit. So whatever people think has long ceased to be of consequence to me. If I wish to be influenced or gain some insight, I'll listen to a good lecture by the likes of Rüdiger Safranski which doesn't imply I agree with everything he says since to disagree is as much intrinsic to thinking as the acceptance of ideas due to the reasons given.

[iambiguous]

Really, I've found there are many here who, like you, prefer that a discussion of "evil"/evil/Evil go on and on and on and on up on the intellectual skyhooks.

You're so funny.

You're the one who's trying to impress people with big words. If there are any "intellectual skyhooks," they're stuck in your waistband.

Back again to letting others here decide for themselves which of us is more likely to be found up in the "philosophical" clouds.

Over and over and over again we are confronted with actual flesh and blood human beings accusing each other of evil behavior.

They give us reasons for that. Now from my frame of mind the reasons revolve more around the profoundly problematic parameters of dasein than around anything approaching an objective deontological assessment. Whether derived from Humanism or from God/religion.

Again...

"Now, [let us] bring all of this down to Earth [again] in regard to a particular set of circumstances, and we can discuss our own respective moral philosophers."

Whoa, wait...

You say that if "people" say something is evil, we have to take them seriously, right?

But you also think that if 100% of "people" act as if Determinism is false, it proves nothing, right?

We have to take them seriously if, given a free will world, they have the power to punish us for behaving in a manner that they construe to be evil.

Whereas with determinism we have no consensus of opinion among either scientists or philosophers that free will is in fact the real deal.

Everything here always comes down to what we are either compelled by nature's laws to do, or to a definitive explanation of how the human brain is the one exception to the rule. It may well be, sure. But, if it is, then being accused of evil behavior by someone able to, say, toss you in jail for it, has to be taken seriously.

Which way do you want to argue? Are the opinions people express indicative of some truth we have to account for, or are they simply dismissible.

How about this: you provide me with the definitive evidence from Penfield's book that pins it to the mat once and for all..

Then connect the dots between that plus an omniscient Christian God to the existential implications of free will in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change; and with individuals who do not derive their moral, political and spiritual values from the manner in which I construe human identity here as the existential embodiment of dasein.

You choose the context in which to explore this more substantively.

Good and evil are among the word-sounds that English speaking people invented. The rest is history. With or without the Christian God.

Honestly, I've got to say that that's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard ! It's really funny.

Right, like down through the centuries people have not invented words to differentiate behaviors they approve of and behaviors they do not. With or without countless Gods.

You may as well write, "Unicorn and pixie are among the word-sounds that English speaking people invented. The rest is history. With or without the Christian God." The pattern of argument is identical -- and obviously, identically ridiculous.

Again, back to unicorns and pixies. Words created to describe creatures that do not actually exist...but are only invented for "make-believe" stories. Whereas Good and Evil [and all the many equivalents] were invented in all communities to encompass behaviors that were in fact embodied in any number of contexts in which the consequences were anything but "make-believe".

Without proof that unicorns and pixies exist, the words are just imaginings. "History" won't help the case at all. An old stupidity isn't better than a new one.

The same is true of good and evil -- they simply don't exist in an Atheistic world. They are not real properties of anything -- unless you can prove otherwise.

Go ahead.

They exist for those atheists who insist that good and evil can be grasped deontologically or ideologically or [re those like Ayn Rand] "metaphysically". Out in the real world, people are rewarded or punished every day for behaviors that are entirely grounded in actual flesh and blood human interactions out in particular communities. Not "rewarded" or "punished" as you attribute to me.

Instead, it's my point that in a No God world, Evil is merely that which someone believes exists "in their head". That in fact there is no way in which to demonstrate definitively that we are not talking about "good" and "evil" instead.

On the contrary, in order to configure "evil" into Evil, you need things like the Christian God. And precisely in order the take the behaviors we choose as mere mortals on this side of the grave to Judgment Day. There God will mete out the ultimate reward or punishment.

Right?

As I noted to the objectivists among us, including Christians like you...

Certain behaviors are flat out Evil to them.

But you think they're just fooling themselves about that, obviously.

No, I am only pointing out that "here and now" I don't believe in objective morality. Either derived from your Christain God or, instead, from one or another Humanist narrative. And for all of the reasons I have noted.

And, clearly, if others do believe in God or in one or another political ideology or deontological assessment or metaphysical dogma or view of so-called "natural" behavior, i am certainly not insisting that they are necessarily wrong. I'm only asking them to take what they believe in their head and in regard to particular contexts at least attempt to demonstrate to me why, in their view, all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as they do.

"I" don't believe mere mortals can establish definitively when any behaviors are inherently/necessarily Evil.

I agree. They cannot. But since you don't believe in God, you've got NOBODY who ever can.

But that's not to say that down the road, I won't come upon someone able to convince me otherwise. Otherwise, I would be excluding myself from my own point of view.

[Dontaskme]

But you've got nothing.

You've got it backwards...because in reality...Nothing's got you.

You have no idea how that can happen.

What is an idea?

Who is asking? I've no idea, except what I imagine as a thing, any thing. Point to the thing, and that will be the answer to what is an idea. How does that thing happen? is like asking how does the whole universe happen... So where do you go from the 'How' question.. as you reach an impasse where relative ideas about the absolute are absurd, and you IC are stuck in your own absurdity.

Language is a story upon the mystery of being that can never be known. Fundamentally, You are the knowing that cannot be known.

You are the blank canvas (NO thing) on which you paint (imagine) your image (projection).
You then identify with 'imagined image' as who and what you are. Well guess what, the blank canvas is the real you here now always present, and the rest is history, in other words the unwritten. And this truth is what you dread to face. So be it. You can deny the truth all you want, but it will always be staring you in the face, there will be no escape for you, because everytime you speak of other, you are literally creating your own shadow that is impossible to get ahead of.

In other words, you can never cross the horizon to get a peek up your own skirt.

.

[Dontaskme]

Nope.

Nothing is interesting until it's interesting.
From inside a cow.. it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.

[uwot]

If you have a theory of how the human race could evolve without there being an original mating pair, then say it.

Btw, evolution is not an incoherent theory and doesn't require an original mating pair while the Adam and Eve story is mandatory without which your entire Jesus story turns to bunk.

When the first Lucy ape met the first Ricky ape would that suffice as the first mating pair? Will you be happy then?

Mr Can clearly believes that in order to produce offspring, human beings have to be genetically identical. Even identical twins are not genetically identical: https://www.livescience.com/identical-t ... l-dna.html His insistence that there must have been an original mating pair is a claim made in the Bronze Age. We now know better. The small variations in genetic make up can improve or hinder mating success; over time the more successful traits dominate, but it is not necessary for two individuals to have identical genomes. For one thing, they'd have to be the same sex.