The historicity of Adam

[gurneyhalleck1]

Do you normally get insomnia, Rus?

El cheapo vacation tour package.
Totally on a shoestring budget. But if you just want sun and surf, you don't need to spend more money. The hotels provide all meals, local beer and wine in the tour package.
At the moment, my insomnia has me up and about.

 

[rusmeister]

Rus escaped from a Turkish prison after smuggling hashish duct-taped to his undershirt arrested in the airport. Frightening ordeal. Rus' real name: Billy Hayes.

Well, "Billy" is just a nickname...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'll send you a hotdog, a FOOTLONG hotdog with a long, skinny saw blade inside. You'll be out of that hell hole in no time, Billy!

Every time I think of my buddy, Rusmeister, this SONG will go through my head!!! Over and over, man!

Giorgio Moroder Chase theme from Midnight Express - YouTube

Well, "Billy" is just a nickname...

 

[AndrewEOC]

forgive me, i dont understand how you don't see the contradiction - in the Patristic scenario there was a time of Paradise reigning over the earth, free of all corruption and morality -- in the evolutionary scenario corruption and death have always existed, regardless of the sin of man.

I would highly, highly recommend you (and everyone else interested in this topic) to read Bouteneff's Beginnings, in which he (a professor of theology at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) describes in probably the most comprehensive analysis available exactly what the Fathers believed concerning interpretation of Genesis and insight on how to approach this today. As I mentioned I have not read it thoroughly myself and am really looking forward to doing so, but here is his conclusion. Maybe it will help you understand why I and others have no problem with evolution from an Orthodox perspective, even while acknowledging what the Saints have said:

...Unlike many Christians in our day, for example, the Fathers generally did not doubt Adam and Eve's historic existence; Adam was, after all, the root of the key scriptural genealogies. Unlike us, they had no scientific reason to doubt them as the first physical parents of humanity. Thinkers such as Origen, especially; took the literary cues of the biblical narratives as indicating an interweaving of fictive and historical material and pointed out that the “historical“ tends to be completely beyond our means either to access or to prove. Yet even he, like the other fathers, when speaking genealogically, looked back to Adam. Taking this for granted, the fathers approached the narratives on the allegorical, typological, and moral levels, milking each for truth and meaning. Whatever their different conclusions ahout the details and historicity, they saw the narratives as telling the truth ahout God and created reality, about human sinfulness and the need for redemption, and ultimately about the person and work of Christ, the Son of the Father, anointed by and proclaimed in the Holy Spirit.

The point is not, then, whether the fathers took the seven “days” or Adam
to be historical. For the fathers, as for us, the historicity question has much
more to do with how narrative, and scriptural narrative specifically, works to
convey its message—something that both the fathers and we understand in
a variety of ways. As to the end result, however, none of the fathers‘ strictly
theological or moral conclusions—about creation, or about humanity and its
redemption, and the coherence of everything in Christ—has anything to tlo
with the datable chronology of the creation of the universe or with the physical
existence of Adam and Eve. They read the creation narratives as Holy Scrip-
ture, and therefore as “true.” But they did not see them as lessons in history
or science as such, even as they reveled in the overlaps they observed between
the scriptural narrative and the observable world. Generally speaking, the
fathers were free from a slavish deference to science. Rather their theological
and paraenetic approach to the creation narratives left them free to enjoy an
unprejudiced scientific inquisitiveness.

That being the case, those of us who seek fidelity to the fathers should
likewise refrain from overly conflating Scripture with science, in order to bring
realistic expectations to each. This means that we would have no reason to
manipulate or ignore scientific finding that do not appear to accord with the
Genesis accounts, since they operate on a different register. This separation
is important for us because, unlike the fathers, we do have data that would
make a sheerly scientific and historical interpretation of Genesis well nigh
impossible, despite some modern authors’ best efforts. Yet the ever-unfolding
data ahout the size, layout, and probable age of the created world- which
goes so far beyond what the fathers knew about it—can give us the same exu-
berance as it did the early Christian writers: a joyous wonder in mystery and
divine providence, and even, at times, a recognition of overlaps with aspects
of the scriptural narratives.

If we follow the fathers, we will see the Genesis creation accounts as God’s
uniquely chosen vehicle to express his truth about cosmic and human origins and
the dynamics of sin and death, all recapitulated and cohering in the person of
Christ. However we might reckon the narratives' relationship to the unfolding of
events in historical time, our gaze will he fixed decidedly on the New Adam.

 

[jckstraw72]

i've read Bouteneff. he does a good job of demonstrating what the Fathers taught - he provides many sources. unfortunately, his comments and conclusions don't follow from the evidence he provides. and his conclusions are in disagreement with every Saint or elder who has spoken on the issue.

 

[rusmeister]

Do you normally get insomnia, Rus?

Yes.

 

[rusmeister]

It's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. The more offensive one party is, the greater the sympathy elicited by the opposition, to paraphrase Gorky.



In my experience, a large majority of people using today's technology do not fundamentally understand how it works. Basic physics, chemistry, and biology and the practical application of those fields are lost on many people, including often on myself. This goes for the young and old, college educated and uneducated, secular and religious, etc. And it should concern everyone including atheists, but perhaps Christians most of all, since as you say we should be agnostic to a degree concerning certain things. But how can we be agnostic without possessing the information with which to be so? Like spiritual knowledge, there is no limit to the acquisition of scientific knowledge and most of us in reality have little of either. And scientists actually often are surprisingly humble in acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge of the physical universe, admitting there remain many unknowns. Unphilosophical? Maybe... but I don't think we should give ourselves too much credit, or the scientific community too little.



It depends... there are many methods of exegesis, especially when it comes to details outside of official Church doctrine. I do trust modern Church authorities in relation to exegesis, my priest in particular.

Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.

Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.

Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.

We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.

The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.

So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.

A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
The Revival of Philosophy – Why?


Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.

 

[AndrewEOC]

i've read Bouteneff. he does a good job of demonstrating what the Fathers taught - he provides many sources. unfortunately, his comments and conclusions don't follow from the evidence he provides.

Well, as much as I would love to accept the vague opinions of a stranger on an Internet forum, as it is I side with him, Kuraev, Kallistos Ware, Fr. Thomas Hopko, and others e.g. my own priest in their well-informed conclusions (in addition to my own) that evolutionary theory is hardly incompatible with Orthodox belief and teachings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'll try to match that epic brevity that, in a breathtaking way, totally evades elaboration!

"Ok"

Yes.

 

[MKJ]

El cheapo vacation tour package.
Totally on a shoestring budget. But if you just want sun and surf, you don't need to spend more money. The hotels provide all meals, local beer and wine in the tour package.
At the moment, my insomnia has me up and about.

Nice!

I have a close friend who lives in Istanbul, and I would love to go visit him, but from Canada the air-fare is substantial.

Are you on the coast?

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, as much as I would love to accept the vague opinions of a stranger on an Internet forum, as it is I side with him, Kuraev, Kallistos Ware, Fr. Thomas Hopko, and others e.g. my own priest in their well-informed conclusions (in addition to my own) that evolutionary theory is hardly incompatible with Orthodox belief and teachings.

out of curiosity - what makes these men more authoritative theologically-speaking, than someone like Elder Paisios, or St. Justin Popovich? is it because they affirm what you want to believe?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That was an INCREDIBLE article, Rus! I read it a couple of times (GKC sometimes requires a second reading; the guy is deep, or I'm dense. Maybe a little of both! ). I enjoyed it so much that I posted it on Facebook (though I doubt anyone will read it!)

Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.

Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.

Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.

We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.

The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.

So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.

A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
The Revival of Philosophy – Why?


Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.

Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.

Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.

We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.

The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.

So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.

A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:


Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.

I suspect from the tone of your post that you believe I am one of those "scientist-worshipers" you condemned earlier. I suspect, therefore, that you misunderstand me. I do not worship science as independently valuable, or worship scientists as enlightened beings. Nothing of the sort. I'm guided only by the concern that lagging in technical knowledge of today's scientific advances will harm Christians, and the Christian mission, in the long run. In fact if there were more Christians paving the way in these discoveries, there would be less reason for concern. But science and technology is easily exploited for the sake of some agenda, sometimes an immoral one. Therefore the need, in my opinion, is great for those with both scientific and philosophical knowledge. We should not, in our modern technology-based world, deemphasize the importance of either.

 

[MKJ]

Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.

Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.

Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.

We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.

The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.

So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.

A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
The Revival of Philosophy – Why?


Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.

I think though Rus, people find it difficult to take even people's philosophical credentials seriously when they make fairy basic errors, or wildly unlikely theories, about things like evolution or cosmology.

That happens quite a lot among the groups you find in the US promoting creationism or from creation scientists, and I've seen it too from well respected religious thinkers and saintly people. They often do not even give an accurate description of what the theory of evolution entails. Sometimes it seems to be because they don't have access to good information, and sometimes because they don't understand it, and sometimes I think they are actually being dishonest.

But it is hard to take the criticism of someone who is speaking about something he does not have the correct information on as very useful. And if someone is not able to understand the theory, it is again not useful criticism and I wonder about the wisdom of someone who speaks about something he does not understand, and how well he would understand the theological implications anyway. And of course I am not going to trust someone dishonest.

But more basically, it very often seems that such people really misunderstand the whole project of science, how it works - they know little or nothing about the philosophy of science or its history. And really, i am not going to take them seriously, any more than I take what Richard Dawkins says about theology seriously.

I also think that your characterization here of scientific theory is a little skewed. It is probably not correct, for example, to equate the theories of pre-modern science with modern science for that purpose. The fact that people used to believe in four elements is in some ways inportant in the history of science - but it is really qualitativly different with regard to how science now operates in creating theories and refining them.

In general, there is a real logic to the way scientific theories in modern science develop historically, and it is not random nor often if ever a matter of one thing that is totally different supplanting another. Newtonian physics is not something of a totally different kind than relativity - this is why Einstein said that all physicists are "forever tracing Newton's ground".

The Enlightenment too, remember, was not a lone movement. It spawned its opposite, and that opposite has been what has generated the view of religion that rejects the unity of knowledge - on the one hand you have Dawkins, on the other the "creation scientist". As well as spiritualists, Shakers, Mormons, and all the rest. Both approaches have failed because they have tried to separate what should not be separated.

But modern science does not rest solely on the Enlightenment view, and where it restricts itself, it does not do so without being conscious of it. That view of science has really been largely supplanted.

 

[AndrewEOC]

is it because they affirm what you want to believe?

The Orthodox Church fully allows for a diversity of educated conclusions when it comes to evolution and interpretation of Genesis, as Bouteneff himself points out. Do you side with Elder Paisios regarding evolution (I assume creationist since you used him as an example) because he "affirms what you want to believe"? Your answer will probably be the same as mine.

 

[jckstraw72]

i side with Elder Paisios because there is a consistent and clear teaching concerning Genesis, as people like Fr. Seraphim and Bouteneff demonstrate, and the Elder, together with all the other illumined Saints who have spoken about evolution, are all in agreement. either the Spirit is speaking, or we've got 2000 years of fools we call Saints.

when i was converting to Orthodoxy i was quite open to the possibility that the Fathers have not interpreted Genesis literally, as some people were telling me. however, when I began to actually read the Fathers I found this to be obvious rubbish.

 

[AndrewEOC]

i side with Elder Paisios because there is a consistent and clear teaching concerning Genesis, as people like Fr. Seraphim and Bouteneff demonstrate, and the Elder, together with all the other illumined Saints who have spoken about evolution, are all in agreement. either the Spirit is speaking, or we've got 2000 years of fools we call Saints.

Kallistos Ware, Fr. Thomas Hopko, my priest etc. are the ones who brought me to Orthodoxy and I fully believe the Spirit is speaking through them. If not I would not be here. Of course holiness, even saintliness, does not mean omniscience, infallibility, or the ability to decide dogma. Doesn't mean they're not people we should emulate or venerate. Besides which it's impossible and unjust to call anyone from the past ignorant. Different times, different world.

 

[AndrewEOC]

BTW I advise you reread Bouteneff if you think that is his conclusion. In the paragraphs before the one I pasted here he talks specifically about the changing methods of exegesis of Genesis by the fathers.

 

[jckstraw72]

the problem is that the Saints did not teach as if they were just giving opinions based on the limited knowledge of their day. they speak rather dogmatically. St. Basil tells us in his Hexaemeron that he is leaving behind worldly knowledge and giving us the teaching of the Church, and St. Gregory of Nyssa says that St. Basil's work is no less true than Moses' account, and St. Gregory the Theologian tells us that St. Basil's Hexaemeron lifts his mind to God. St. Ephraim the Syrian tells us that it is impermissible to interpret the days allegorically. St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Methodios of Olympus both tell us that it is dangerous to deny the historicity of Genesis, etc. Nowhere do we find them timidly postulating opinions. they speak with clarity and boldness and force.

 

[jckstraw72]

BTW I advise you reread Bouteneff if you think that is his conclusion. In the paragraphs before the one I pasted here he talks specifically about the changing methods of exegesis of Genesis by the fathers.

you've already told us that you haven't really read the book. i've read it, took notes on it, and used it in my Master's thesis. i'm familiar with the book. regardless of his conclusions, he shows us that every Father interpreted Genesis literally. He does not demonstrate even a single Father denying the literal interpretation of Genesis. He shows that symbolic and literal are complementary, just as did Fr. Seraphim. the difference is that Fr. Seraphim accepts that as his conclusion, whereas Bouteneff does not.