How do you reconcile Evolution and Genesis?

[zippy2006]

More specifically, does 'natural evil' even exist? What do we mean by that term?

I think it's a good point and I'm glad this argument is receiving representation. At the same time I can see the other side. Perhaps pain, suffering, and (non-human) death are actually evil and the matter surpasses anthropomorphism.

If I had to pick I would take your side, but it's a hard question. This precise issue is actually why I asked Silmarien to say more about her question or concern.

CS Lewis had the Hrossa of Malacandra, the unfallen Mars of his Space Trilogy, hunt a fearsome water creature.

Great example! I think it also represents swaths of the Biblical, Hebrew view of death.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More specifically, does 'natural evil' even exist? What do we mean by that term?

Evil essentially means something against nature (related to Ill), as bad etymologically likely means to defile. So 'natural evil' is an oxymoron. Is a lion killing antelope doing 'evil', or what she clearly was supposed to do? Or a parasitic wasp? We only judge it 'evil' by importing human moral reasoning, or judging it morally inferior to presumed paradise where the wolf lies with the lamb. They are following a natural order though.

Evil came into existence biblically when a moral choice was made to act against the natural order as decreed by the Creator. Humans ate that which was decreed should not be eaten by our kind. So in essence, if animals are acting in a natural manner, how can that be judged evil except by anthropomorphising from human moral evil? Natural Evil is inherently a derivitive concept from Moral Evil, and a problematic one at that.

We see this in Stoic thought too, where you must accept your lot from Fate. A lion mauling you isn't a moral agent, so while an 'evil' to you, the lion is not acting against the order of the world at all. As the Stars decreed and the season follow on season... Does something not only become 'evil' once we decide it should not be so?
Thinking Natural Evil to exist seems Zoroastrian or Manichean to me, that another contrary order to that instituted by the Good God is there. In this way, creatures without free choice beyond instinct, could choose a different 'evil' nature. But Christianity teaches that 'and it was Good'.
Evil does not have a nature of its own, but only corrupted good; trying to attain a good by short-cut or one not alloted to you. It is a shadow of good, not having an existence completely of itself, but only in reference to its opposite. Something acting in its nature, cannot circumvent its nature, so Natural Evil is contradictory.

CS Lewis had the Hrossa of Malacandra, the unfallen Mars of his Space Trilogy, hunt a fearsome water creature. Within this act, they found bravery and honour, while they might suffer in the process and perish. In the same way, we can judge wolves stalking their prey noble, feeding their pack after all, or see bravery in a tiny animal facing a large predator. So it cuts both ways, that what we can judge evil from human ways, we can also judge laudable. This is in stark contrast with moral evil, from which a wrong is a wrong, though people may consider it a justified one or a 'necessary evil'.

What the nature of Eden or the New Earth after the Parousia would entail, I frankly don't know. But while the world may be considered 'corrupted' by the Fall traditionally, that its nature was changed in some manner, without a moral scope it cannot be construed to be evil. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, or earthquakes occured, this was seen as chastisement for sin, for moral failings by man, or was termed natural as 'written in the stars'.

I agree with most, but is a Lion mauling you, with or against nature since all were put in subjugation to man..... Therefore would that be against its nature to hunt humans and so it should be put down?????

God didn't put us below the animals, or even on an equal footing, but them below us.

Also something changed after the flood as well. Before the flood "all flesh" became corrupt. Yet God changed something as he could promise never to bring about another. The fall affected more than just mankind when Lucifer was given rule of this world.

IMO it was a genetic change. I believe before the flood there was no precise genetic block to keep species from interbreeding. But they went against the natural command of kind after kind. So the only way he could promise not to destroy the world again was to ensure it could not become corrupt as it once was and on its way to becoming.

Merely starting over with what already existed would not remove the conditions which led to the corruption, but it itself must be removed..... and now species can no longer mate with other species.....

 

[ViaCrucis]

You confuse death of creatures with death of mankind......

Nowhere is eternal life promised to plants or animals, so what makes you think that their death is a problem? Are you anthropomorphizing?

Also how would Adam know what the punishment for sin was if he had never observed death? This is one of my biggest problems with those who assert before sin entered, there was no death.... I mean even in our so-called enlightened state would we understand what it was if we had never observed it???? How can a word for death exist and its understanding without the condition also existing?????

Adam could never have been eternal... "lest he stretch forth his hand...."

Just the possibility to eat from the tree each month to heal and sustain him.

"in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

If you understood Christian teaching, you'd know the Christian hope is the renewal of all things in the Age to Come.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

simple....you don't.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

When I was a Christian, I couldn't reconcile the two. It's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian.

There is no "use to be" regarding being a Christian.
Either you are or you are not.
If you are not now , then you never were.
You cannot unsave yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is no "use to be" regarding being a Christian.
Either you are or you are not.
If you are not now , then you never were.
You cannot unsave yourself.

Can you direct me to appropriate analysis of scripture by recongised theologians that supports that assertion? Do you claim that no theologians dispute such an assertion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you direct me to appropriate analysis of scripture by recongised theologians that supports that assertion?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Can you direct me to appropriate analysis of scripture by recongised theologians that supports that assertion? Do you claim that no theologians dispute such an assertion?

No I do not claim that no theologians dispute "such" an assertion as to whether one was saved at one time then lost or gave up their salvation because I know such people exist.

I personally do not put much investment of what any theologian states , but rather what the Living Word of God says regarding the security of a believer in Christ Jesus who has placed their faith in Him and Him alone as far as receiving forgiveness of sins and salvation.

John 10:28 (KJV)
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish , neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Amen!
⚘

 

[Ophiolite]

No I do not claim that no theologians dispute "such" an assertion as to whether one was saved at one time then lost or gave up their salvation because I know such people exist.

I personally do not put much investment of what any theologian states , but rather what the Living Word of God says regarding the security of a believer in Christ Jesus who has placed their faith in Him and Him alone as far as receiving forgiveness of sins and salvation.

John 10:28 (KJV)
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish , neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Amen!
⚘

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will simply note that you have placed an interpretation on the words of scripture and thus I find the absolute nature of your assertion unconvincing. But, again, thank you for the clarification.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will simply note that you have placed an interpretation on the words of scripture and thus I find the absolute nature of your assertion unconvincing. But, again, thank you for the clarification.

What part do you find unconvincing?

 

[Silmarien]

More specifically, does 'natural evil' even exist? What do we mean by that term?

Evil essentially means something against nature (related to Ill), as bad etymologically likely means to defile. So 'natural evil' is an oxymoron. Is a lion killing antelope doing 'evil', or what she clearly was supposed to do? Or a parasitic wasp? We only judge it 'evil' by importing human moral reasoning, or judging it morally inferior to presumed paradise where the wolf lies with the lamb. They are following a natural order though.

Evil came into existence biblically when a moral choice was made to act against the natural order as decreed by the Creator. Humans ate that which was decreed should not be eaten by our kind. So in essence, if animals are acting in a natural manner, how can that be judged evil except by anthropomorphising from human moral evil? Natural Evil is inherently a derivitive concept from Moral Evil, and a problematic one at that.

We see this in Stoic thought too, where you must accept your lot from Fate. A lion mauling you isn't a moral agent, so while an 'evil' to you, the lion is not acting against the order of the world at all. As the Stars decreed and the season follow on season... Does something not only become 'evil' once we decide it should not be so?
Thinking Natural Evil to exist seems Zoroastrian or Manichean to me, that another contrary order to that instituted by the Good God is there. In this way, creatures without free choice beyond instinct, could choose a different 'evil' nature. But Christianity teaches that 'and it was Good'.
Evil does not have a nature of its own, but only corrupted good; trying to attain a good by short-cut or one not alloted to you. It is a shadow of good, not having an existence completely of itself, but only in reference to its opposite. Something acting in its nature, cannot circumvent its nature, so Natural Evil is contradictory.

CS Lewis had the Hrossa of Malacandra, the unfallen Mars of his Space Trilogy, hunt a fearsome water creature. Within this act, they found bravery and honour, while they might suffer in the process and perish. In the same way, we can judge wolves stalking their prey noble, feeding their pack after all, or see bravery in a tiny animal facing a large predator. So it cuts both ways, that what we can judge evil from human ways, we can also judge laudable. This is in stark contrast with moral evil, from which a wrong is a wrong, though people may consider it a justified one or a 'necessary evil'.

What the nature of Eden or the New Earth after the Parousia would entail, I frankly don't know. But while the world may be considered 'corrupted' by the Fall traditionally, that its nature was changed in some manner, without a moral scope it cannot be construed to be evil. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, or earthquakes occured, this was seen as chastisement for sin, for moral failings by man, or was termed natural as 'written in the stars'.

I have a couple concerns with this approach, Quid.

1) Is natural evil really an oxymoron? In the moral sense, yes, as morality cannot exist without rational beings. But things can be good and bad even without human rationality. To take things in an Aristotelian direction, a good tree is one which sinks its roots into the earth and receives abundant nutrients. A bad tree is one that can't manage this effectively.

Things can similarly be good and bad for living entities aside from humans. It is good for a lion to catch a meal. It is bad for an antelope to be that meal. Once we hit human rationality, these lower level valuations develop into full-fledged morality, but the concept exists previously. So why is it the case that the natural world results in processes that create both good and bad outcomes? Why does suffering exist? Referring to all of this as the Problem of Suffering might be more helpful than calling it the Problem of Evil, especially in the pre-human framework.

2) Is it appropriate in this case to say that natural evil is the result of anthropomorphism? You invoke Stoicism, but I think if anything that would hurt the case for Christianity proper, since Christianity provides an alternative to the pagan philosophies that said either (a) the world is all there is and cannot in and of itself be good or evil, or (b) because the Good is beyond the material, the material must be transcended. Christianity does something different--it says that the world is good. This may be an anthropomorphism, but it seems very clear to me that Christianity is saying quite explicitly, "Your human intuitions are correct. The world is good, but fallen. This is not what it is supposed to be. Any of it."

I think my main concern is this:

Can we have much hope that the full Christian picture of morality, particularly in where it departs from pagan thought with its universalism and progressive take on history, is true? Or does the way that evolution unfolds imply that the natural order is the only real order (in more of an Aristotelian than atheistic sense), and Christianity just another empty form of utopianism? Though I've admittedly been in a Puddleglum mood recently myself.

 

[zippy2006]

Can we have much hope that the full Christian picture of morality, particularly in where it departs from pagan thought with its universalism and progressive take on history, is true? Or does the way that evolution unfolds imply that the natural order is the only real order (in more of an Aristotelian than atheistic sense), and Christianity just another empty form of utopianism?

How does Evolution potentially contradict Christian morality? You have hinted at this but you haven't given it a real thorough treatment (and this is why I would have preferred a separate thread/OP ). What are the deep conflicts?

Relatedly and perhaps separate: how does one adjudicate the question of whether natural suffering and death are evil?

 

[Ing Bee]

Yes I agree. However we have no means of deciding whether God exists or whether something is or isn't divine revelation. This in turn makes the concept of divine revelation of no practical use, at least in science matters that is… I didn't make any assertions about divine revelation in my previous post. I only asked a question about it. Could you use your definition of divine revelation in your answer please?

Thank you for your response. It clarifies and confirms some points for me. This may get long; your patience is appreciated in advance.

To explain what I mean by the phrase "divine revelation", I'll set the stage with a statement that may seem a non sequitur in this discussion but which I think is crucial to navigating the post-enlightenment morass as well as some extremely unfortunate and relatively recent developments in Christian formation: Our intuitive and experiential understanding about being, personality, and relationship are highly reliable in understanding and knowing Yahweh, the tri-personal God of everything.

Interpersonal Relationship between Yahweh and humanity is the point of the Bible. Yahweh is inherently relationally; "Agape" as a primary attribute of God in 1 John 4:8 requires eternal relationship with an eternal "beloved". A quick survey of key concepts in the Bible will show that this is not a novel idea; you'll find that a people set apart for interpersonal relationship with God is the focus.

Ask questions like:

• What is the picture of God and humanity before the serpent enters the picture?
• What relationally was going on with the eating of the fruit?
• What were the immediate and growing effects of sin?
• What are covenants and why does God keep making them with people who consistently break them?
• How is "faith" consistently characterized in both the Old and New Testaments ?
  (Hint: it is not 'belief without evidence')
• Why does God persistently choose to work with and through relationships with particular humans?
• Why is "faith" in Jesus necessary, why can't you "have" eternal life without it?
• When Jesus refers to his blood as securing the "new covenant" why is this covenant better than the Mosaic Covenant?
• What are the two greatest commandments and how do they reflect God's relational heart?

Why is this important? It means that approaching God as an empirical subject, using modern scientific methodology and assumptions is inadequate and completely inappropriate if your goal is to interpersonally know Yahweh as Father, friend, Savior, Creator, Lord, King etc., all of which are relationship terms. We don't relate interpersonally by assuming that someone doesn't exist. We also don't get into meaningful relationships by demanding the other person perform according to our demands.

A much better way of going about knowing God is to interact with him based on what he thinks, desires, acts and feels. With this understanding, "divine self-disclosure" (which is what I mean by "divine revelation"), is no different from human self-disclosure. No human can know another human without self-disclosure (e.g. physical appearance, creative artifacts, character (mind and will revealed in action over time), speech, writing, intermediary, reputation, etc.)

Similarly, no one can known God without personal self-disclosure. Yahweh employs EVERY human method of self-disclosure listed above, the best and most complete was when the second person of Yahweh took on human flesh and personally revealed the nature and character of the Father as one who had been in the Father's presence from eternity past (John 1:1,14,18, Hebrews 1:1-2). In Jesus we find deep compassion, deep sorrow, deep love, deep forgiveness, deep anger at the harm to humans and relationship. This is exactly what we see in the Old Testament self-disclosure of Yahweh.

No human can enter into an interpersonal relationship without a trusting response toward another persons self-disclosure. "Faith" in the Bible is always relational confidence in God based on adequate self-disclosure. Another scripture survey shows that God's directives to individuals like the patriarchs and Moses, etc. always follow self-disclosure ("I am the God of your Fathers", burning bush, personal appearances, etc.). All miracles in the Bible should be understood in this context, not as "subversions of nature" but as trust-deepening and relationship proving actions. John explicitly states this in chapter 20 of his gospel - "signs" point to a person you can know and who wants to know you intimately and has acted to make relationship possible by destroying the effects of sin and enabling victory over it.

"Divine revelation" is invitation into relationship. Either you accept and engage or your demure. There is no question of "can we come to agreement about what this text means" because a personal God is a relational free agent. We don't need to wait for a consensus before we know a human person and it is no different with the tri-personal Yahweh. This is exactly how Yahweh acts: he always initiates relationship which one either reciprocates (trusting cooperation) or doesn't, just like with human to human relationships.

Take Hebrews 11:6 as an instance of this very human reality: to be in relationship you have to 1) believe they are real and can be known and 2) that attempts to engage in relationship will be fruitful. Another theme in scripture is this: no one who wants God is turned away.

What is the cost of not being connected to the only source of goodness and life in all reality? Decay, death. Sin is often connected to death and decay in scripture. For instance, "Gehenna" translated "hell" in the New Testament is the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem famous for its previous us by followers of Moloch as a site for baby sacrifice.

While I'm on the subject of sin, sin in the bible is not disobedience but anti-relational, self-centered willing and doing that always leads to death and human misery. There are three words used to discuss the range of this destructive human bent: sin (failure to treat God and humans with the honor they deserve), transgress (willfully violate of trust), and iniquity (crooked behavior toward others). No surprise, they are all relational concepts. In rejecting God's definition of good and evil and preferring instead to trust a usurper who hadn't made the universe, hadn't created them, hadn't given them everything, hadn't enjoyed fellowship with them in the garden, humanity cut ourselves off from the good life of God, the only source of life in the universe. Just as a fan unplugged from power will eventually wind down, we rapidly see the decay of humanity: physical and moral. The future of humanity is divided into two families: the seed of Adam and Eve and the seed of the Nachash (serpent). Which is which? Those who seek relationship with Yahweh through trust in who He is versus those who act like the serpent (lying , murder, immorality, violence, oppression). In fact, those humans who are praised in the Old Testament writings are those who are in relationship through trust (faith) in who God has shown himself to be and who therefore trust his future actions will be consistent with his nature and character.

Perhaps you can see why I can't ascribe to your statement: "We have no means of deciding whether God exists or whether something is or isn't divine revelation. This in turn makes the concept of divine revelation of no practical use, at least in science matters that is. "

• Science is an inadequate and inappropriate toolbox for matters of interpersonality, the primary focus of the Bible.
• When the Creator of the universe introduces himself, and demonstrates his reliability, he's trustworthy.
• Trusting cooperation (Faith) always results from Divine self-disclosure - a persistent way that Christians throughout the past 2 millenia tend to talk about God.
• God is not a passive object or intellectual concept, he has and does continue to self-disclose to those who "earnestly seek him".
• God is a free agent in this process and always the initiator (John 6:44, John 16:7-8)
• God has disclosed himself in every possible way that a person can and are accessible as such.
• Many, many people (myself included) have taken Him at his word and found him to be reliable and relationally active in the world
• God seems perfectly willing to work with and know imperfect people like me: whether that be moral imperfection, knowledge of nature or mathematics, biology, agriculture, etc. I am glad.
• God is fully capable and has self-disclosed. He also empowers people to be in relationship with him through the presence of the Holy Spirit and to understand him (1 Corinthians 2
• Being in relation with God will change the way you think , act, and feel - a new person, just as promised.
• If you seek him, He will be found - you have to start by taking him at his word. (for example: if he made everything and if he only and always does what is good, all his judgements are just. If you choose not to believe that, you will agree with Dawkins that he's a maniac…except that he doesn't exist.
• Not everyone who calls him "Lord, Lord" actually knows him, but only those who do the will of the Father (i.e. believe in the one the Father sent to establish a new kind of relationship Hebrews 8:8)
• You can tell someone who has been adopted by the Father, through the Son "by their fruit"– that is, do they increasingly reflect the life of God (Galatians 5:16-26)? Just like someone who is being trained by a fitness coach will be become more fit and healthy through spending time with and cooperation with the instructors coaching knowledge. I've experience this personally and I've seen it in others.
• The "Big 2" (Love God, Love People) is a great way for establishing authentic Divine self-disclosure
• John 20:31 is a fantastic summary of God's relational overture in Christ
• It is pointless to attempt to "convince" someone about the existence of God. Only he can introduce himself, but its what he is most interested in doing.
• None of this is demeaning or disparaging toward human knowledge (i.e. science) and ongoing efforts to expand and discover. In fact it's the opposite (see Esther Meek's book A Little Manual on Knowing).
• The assumption in the New Testament is that believers are experiencing a radical new quality of life that is the evidence of what Jesus said about the Father, himself, the Spirit, the future, etc. Everything is built on this assumption (e.f. "if indeed you have tasted and seen that the Lord is good").
• Therefore Divine self-disclosure is of incalculable practical use…if you want to enter into an interpersonal relationship with Him.

If God is omniscient and if he chose to create a Universe with certain initial conditions, then he would know if this would eventually produce the result that he intends? So in this sense he can still create a Universe with random elements but still do so having a specific goal in mind.

I'm comfortable with that to a degree. See below.

Animals aren't designed in the same sense as an engineer designs a car. Evolution is a mindless undirected processes that has no eventual goal. It just builds on what was there before. If you replaced "designed" in your initial point with "evolved", would this convey your intended meaning more accurately? If so, then we both agree and this point requires no further discussion… Just to add, evolution is just another natural process like the weather is. The weather contains a random element just like evolution does. Do you think that God can use the weather as part of his grand plan? If so, why cant he do the same with evolution?

See below.

I'm not sure what you mean here? As I said in my original post, the idea that there was a time when humans had no knowledge of good/evil or that they were incapable of murder is completely inconsistent with evolution. This is because human morality evolved with the human mind gradually over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Chimps have the ability to empathize with others and have a concept of fairness. These abilities would therefore have been present in both our most recent common ancestor who lived about 6 million years ago and early (pre-fall) humans. How can humans have rational thought, the ability to empathize with others and a concept of fairness, but not the ability to tell right from wrong or the ability to commit acts like murder or rape?

This is assuming a purely mechanistic creative process ("wind it up, let it go and see what happens"), without "creatorly" artistry and intent. Jackson Pollock designed painting machines whose inherent limitations created repetitive effects that he would tweak. However, he would always finish his work by carefully painting his signature. The God who has revealed himself is at least this kind of person. He has a pattern of relational involvement with intermediaries (angels, people, animals, nature) so I'm fine with him designing a mechanism and letting it "spin" to get what he intended, then pausing, and creating humanity (physically or psychically) as his final flourish.

 

[Brother Billy]

I agree with your general point. If Christians can no longer coherently point to the Garden of Eden as the specific point where sin and evil entered Creation, then they need to provide an alternative account for why God would intentionally create a world that would lead to suffering as a natural consequence.

As far as I can tell, there are several answers here:

1. The ever popular hand waving.
2. Denying evolution and pretending that the Problem of Evil goes away with it.
3. Denying the reality of good and evil and declaring suffering illusory. This works, I think, but it shoves us outside of Christian theism and towards Hinduism instead.
4. ???

The response I find intriguing is that the universe is in a process of self-creation, and that if it had been brought into existence already complete and perfect, it would be identical with God. Independence requires imperfection, dynamism, and separation from God. And all of this comes with a price.

Of course, Christianity also says that God is willing to pay that price in the end. Viewed in this light, the religion actually makes a lot of sense to me, though you would need to really dig deep into Atonement theology to see the wide variety of ways that it has been conceived of over the centuries. This particular take is pretty subversive, especially if you're not used to the cosmic undertones that show up in Patristics. (And Paul, for that matter.)

The only real answer you mentioned above is 3). I've always found the ideas of karma and reincarnation extremely appealing on many different levels. However I don't really believe that these are actually true.

But then you can't attribute morality to evolutionary psychology. Either it is given to us as part of our heritage as a social species, or it is something that we choose to accept for reasons other than that it happened to be a useful adaptation in the distant past.

Although our morality is strongly determined by evolution, it isn't the only factor. Culture and religion play a part as well. That is why what is moral varies between culture, religion and time period. There is no reason why people can't improve their moral frameworks over time. The more we understand about how our world works and the way our actions impact on others and our enviroment, the better able we are to refine our moral framework so as to increase human flourishing (if that is our goal).

Richard Dawkins is not a great authority on metaethics. He's a brilliant scientist but a terrible philosopher--you can see this in the way he'll hold to hard determinism and then turn around and wax poetic about our ability to choose better moral frameworks. This is incoherent. Either we're slaves to our evolutionary heritage or our behavior cannot be reduced to evolutionary psychology. Not both.

I don't see a contradiction between hard determinism and our ability to choose better moral frameworks. Hard determinism just means that we can regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. The mere fact of us talking about different moral frameworks means that past state of the Universe has been altered, which in turn will affect our future actions.

How would anyone tell the difference between a miracle and an extraordinary event with no current scientific explanation? Atheists have no guarantees that reality is ultimately intelligible--the scientific project could theoretically crash into a wall and fall apart at any moment. This is the infamous Humean Problem of Induction.

I really have no problem reconciling empirical science and the possibility of miracles. I have never experienced one (unless you count existence itself as a miracle, which I actually would), but I see no grounds to rule out the possibility aside from doctrinal commitments. Conflict only arises when people insist that only miraculous explanations are possible (see Creationists), not when they admit the possibility of miracles. If you wish to rule that possibility out, though, good luck finding genuine grounds for doing so.

I think the whole idea is of no practical consequence, because no scientist ever jumps to the conclusion that an extraordinary observation is the consequence of a miracle. It' just labelled unexplained. And so far the models that science has come up with, explain the observations they see.

 

[Silmarien]

Although our morality is strongly determined by evolution, it isn't the only factor. Culture and religion play a part as well. I think there is a complex relationship between these and each has influenced the other three. That is why what is moral varies between culture, religion and time period. There is no reason why people can't improve their moral frameworks over time. The more we understand about how our world works and the way our actions impact on others and our enviroment, the better able we are to refine our moral framework so as to increase human flourishing.

If morality is a matter of human flourishing, then we're not using evolutionary psychology to explain it. We're not using religion or culture either--we're saying that there is something called human flourishing, it is good, and we can figure out what contributes to it. Evolution contributes to what constitutes human flourishing, but our ability to figure out what that means is on us.

This thread is full of Aristotelians right now, for whom the basic view is that human morality comes into the picture when rationality emerges, as it were, from simpler animal behavior. If we think that rationality introduces something new to the picture and that morality cannot be reduced to animal impulses, then it's decidedly strange to point to evolutionary psychology as the answer.

Also a caveat, since if you're talking to theists, you're almost always going to be speaking to moral realists. I'm a liberal absolutist, so what is moral doesn't vary between culture, religion, and time period. Slavery is wrong. Slavery was always wrong, and to the extent that cultures have engaged in it and defended it, those cultures have been wrong. Slavery has always hurt people, it has always deprived them of the ability to flourish as human beings, and the motives behind it were never noble. If moral frameworks can be improved, if some are better than others, then the word "moral" best refers to the improvement, not to anything that claims to be moral. If you're a consequentialist, and you seem to be, it's not very difficult to present your stance in a manner that is reasonably acceptable to moral realists, but any hint of relativism tends to trigger us.

I don't see a contradiction between hard determinism and our ability to choose better moral frameworks. Hard determinism just means that we can regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. The mere fact of us talking about different moral frameworks means that past state of the Universe has been altered, which in turn will affect our future actions.

Hard determinism means that choice is an illusion. We do not choose better or worse moral frameworks if we cannot choose. Things simply happen, and we're along for the ride, willingly or not. We were always going to have this discussion about moral frameworks, whatever future actions will result are completely outside of our control, so why be triumphalist about any of it at all? We may ultimately not choose better moral frameworks at all, but that was also outside of our control, so why stress it? Why not approach the whole thing with a certain cynical inevitability?

Your description of hard determinism applies to everyone except indeterminists. (If they exist. I don't think I've ever seen one.) I doubt even the most extreme libertarian is going to say that the past has no effect on our future actions.

I think the whole idea is of no practical consequence, because no scientist ever jumps to the conclusion that an extraordinary observation is the consequence of a miracle. It' just labelled unexplained. And so far the models that science has come up with, explain the observations they see.

In that case, you should ask some Catholic scientists what they think about the Miracle of Fátima.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What part do you find unconvincing?

From a purely observational standpoint there's the simple fact that there are people who left Christianity, and the claim that such persons were never "really Christians" doesn't jive with observed reality.

As a Lutheran I have a theological problem with OSAS, in that it is fundamentally Theology of Glory, and therefore a rejection of the Theology of the Cross; it denies the assurance of the Gospel.

But, this conversation is best for the theology boards.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ItIsFinished!]

From a purely observational standpoint there's the simple fact that there are people who left Christianity, and the claim that such persons were never "really Christians" doesn't jive with observed reality.

As a Lutheran I have a theological problem with OSAS, in that it is fundamentally Theology of Glory, and therefore a rejection of the Theology of the Cross; it denies the assurance of the Gospel.

But, this conversation is best for the theology boards.

-CryptoLutheran

Once saved , always saved.
No one can pluck you from the Fathers hand.
No one comes to the Father except through Jesus the Christ.
⚘

 

[Silmarien]

How does Evolution potentially contradict Christian morality? You have hinted at this but you haven't given it a real thorough treatment (and this is why I would have preferred a separate thread/OP ). What are the deep conflicts?

Relatedly and perhaps separate: how does one adjudicate the question of whether natural suffering and death are evil?

I will need to think about this more to give it a real thorough treatment, though my answer would probably be somewhat caught up in the Nietzschean critique of Christianity. Does the history of evolution lend itself better to a moral ideal that is more along the lines of what Nietzsche would celebrate: the man who excels, who does not take compassion to an extreme but does not relish in cruelty either, even if he might crush lesser beings under his feet simply as a result of being what he is? Some of the key values for Nietzsche are strength and success, which would be very in line with the type of values that evolution would favor. To what extent is the Christian picture of morality putting the stress elsewhere, and if so, is Nietzsche right to say it goes wrong?

Re: natural suffering and death, I don't think we can adjudicate that free of revelation, but Scripture seems to paint them both in such a light.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Once saved , always saved.
No one can pluck you from the Fathers hand.
No one comes to the Father except through Jesus the Christ.
⚘

I disagree with your theological position which you are using those passages as proof texts for. If you want to know my disagreements in more detail I have no problem addressing the issue, but such a discussion is best for one of the theology boards.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree with your theological position which you are using those passages as proof texts for. If you want to know my disagreements in more detail I have no problem addressing the issue, but such a discussion is best for one of the theology boards.

-CryptoLutheran

Care to discuss it with me?

If so, I'll start a thread there.