Adam & Eve, and the Doctrine of the Fall

After reading a couple of posts by Maverick Philosopher here, as well as here, I began to think about what the story of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' means. 


A bit of a problem was pointed out by a guest-poster on the site, where he noted in the first link why he has problem with the doctrine of sin, and subsequently the doctrine of submission. He believes in classical theism, we submit ourselves to divine authority, seeking his forgiveness, because we have sinned. But he feels the doctrine of sin rests on shaky ground, namely, the story of Adam and Eve. Now, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. Even if one is to interpret the story of Adam and Eve in a way that they find inconsistent, it does not follow that we have not ourselves sinned, and are thus not needing to submit. There would be many reasons to submit to divine authority, not simply for seeking his forgiveness. Nevertheless, what he pointed out got me thinking.


In Genesis 2: 17, the Lord tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In subsequent verses, Eve is tempted by the serpent, eats from the tree, shares it with Adam, and they are both punished by God. The interesting thing is this: Did Adam and Eve have knowledge of Good and Evil before they ate from the Tree? To put it bluntly - if Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing, was it just for God to punish them? The following pentad is presented:


1. If God punishes, God punishes justly.
2. If God punishes an agent justly, then that agent is a moral agent that deliberately does something wrong.
3. A moral agent possesses the knowledge of good and evil.
4. God punishes Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit.
5. Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit.

From this, we have to reject one of the limbs of this argument in order to make it valid. We can't have all five. Which one would you attack? (1) and (4) seem out of the question right off the bat. 

Maybe it's helpful to examine what exactly the story of Adam and Eve tells us. Was God just in punishing Adam and Eve? I would say yes, because He told them deliberately not to eat from the Tree. Now, the only way this means anything is if Adam and Eve are able to understand that disobeying this would be wrong, or sin. Clearly we think this, because Eve recognizes that she should not eat from the Tree, and see's it as wrong. So I would reject (5) as the obvious limb that goes away - Adam and Eve must have had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the Tree.

The tough question, I guess, is why call it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If they had the knowledge beforehand that what they were doing was in fact a sin, then they did not acquire this knowledge from eating from the Tree. But if we deny this, then it would seem God punished Adam and Eve unjustly, since they knew not what they did.

Another interpretation is that Man was not Man, but simply an animal before he ate from the tree. In this sense, eating from the Tree allowed man to shrug off his animal innocence and become Man. In this type of interpretation, we are sort of side-stepping the above five options, and saying that Man wasn't a moral being until eating from the Tree. However this creates all sorts of problems, namely we would now say that Man made himself in God's image. Man took the action that made him an image bearer, which creates much deeper problems.

The story of Adam and Eve, and the Fall, has meaning when applied to each of our lives. I often think of the innocence of a child when I think of this story. In a sense, Adam and Eve were like children before the Fall, oblivious to their nakedness and innocence. Up until a certain age as children, we are also shameless. Despite having a knowledge of good and evil, we have yet to act in a way that we deliberately disobey someone, knowing full well that we are doing wrong. This is what Adam and Eve did, and by doing this, they introduced sin into their relationship with God, in the same way we do when we sin before God.

The question, to me, is why exactly is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil given that name? I'd appreciate comments as to your own interpretation of the Fall, and how you feel about this story. 

Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine tuning argument, to put it simply, is science's way of observing that the initial conditions for our universe had to be set so precisely in order to create a universe that allowed life to grow. Conditions such as as the mass of the proton, neutron, the gravitational force, cosmological constant, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, are very suitable towards sustaining life. If you want to find out more about just how crazy the odds are, there is lots of good information you can read on the internet. Really, what I find important are the objections to the fine-tuning argument. I think the Fine-Tuning Argument is best thought of after consider the implications of the cosmological argument. All in all, the fine-tuning argument shows that we seem to be extremely lucky, and it's not unreasonable to think the universe was 'designed.' If we saw a group of 50 expert marksman lined up in a firing squad fire, and they all missed the target who was several feet from them, we would not conclude that they all just happened to miss, but rather that they all missed on purpose. Such is what the fine-tuning argument implies. Here are some of the responses:

Multiple Universes: I like science. And I have just about the utmost faith that science is not trying to undermine religion. But in the case of the multiverse (as well as science concluding we don't have free will), it seems to me that the conclusion supports the premises, not the other way around. The multiverse should be labeled for what it is: an attempt to explain 'Design' out of the picture. String Theory notwithstanding, the multiverse has absolutely no proof. If you ask how many universes are in the multiverse, it becomes clear that the purpose is to eliminate design. So the number of universes is however many it takes to make the probability that one will support life decent. Now, I don't necessarily think anything wrong about the possibility of multiple universes, but as of now, this theory needs to be labeled for what it is. If you believe in the multiverse, you are using just as much faith as anyone of any religion has ever needed.

Self-Organizing System: I've heard this one thrown around the blogosphere, that systems organize themselves. Two things. First, the constants are typically not related at all, at least up to this point by any scientific theory, and thus, it's unreasonable to think that they are able to interact in a way and organize. More importantly, even if a system was able to organize itself, why would it organize towards being life-permitting? There is no reason to think it would move towards a life-permitting universe over a non-life permitting one. 

Argument from Imperfection: This turns the fine-tuning argument on it's head and states that actually, the universe is mostly rather hostile to life, and thus, could be much better if a designer was involved. First, I would argue how we can know what conditions would make a better universe? It's easy to imagine a universe worse off than ours for permitting life, but it's hard for me to imagine one that is much better. Second, this is to assume that if there is a God, he has no purpose for leaving a majority of the universe uninhabitable. To make this argument is to assume that a designer would create a universe capable of holding as much life as possible, with no other purpose involved, and I don't see why this would be the case.

All in all, the fine-tuning argument is more dangerous than the cosmological argument as far as being something to latch onto. It certainly adds evidence towards God, but it is not without some risk in latching onto. Like the cosmological argument, it uses the fact that we exist to explain our need for God.

Evolution & Creationism

For all believers, evolution is something that has to be dealt with in one way or another. We need to decide how we feel about it, and how it relates to the Bible. After reading The Language of God by Francis Collins, I became aware that I had no idea what I really believed, not just about evolution, but really in general. I had always grown up in the church, but I really hadn't put too much time into my faith, and looking back I realize I was hung up on the thought that maybe God was just "wishful thinking." Sometimes still, it almost seems too good to be true. Dealing with this, which all started with the 'debate' of evolution or creationism, has sparked a revived spiritual interest in my life, one where I want to tackle all of these big issues as best I can.

I'm just going to put this out there upfront - I accept evolution. My position is theistic evolution, for multiple reasons - the scientific, logical, as well as biblical. While I withhold full belief in macro-evolution for the time being, I certainly accept the basic premise of evolution. To me, the fact that creatures are able to 'evolve' is incredible, and points to something that desires creatures to survive and improve. All this said, here are the reasons I accept both:

First and foremost, Evolution theory is not a theory in the sense that I have a theory about why the Giants won the Super Bowl. Evolution theory is a theory like Gravitational theory, it's not something in question. If evolution is a complete lie, then the many other fields of science are also in fault. Science is such that nothing can really be known with absolute certainty, but evolution is not in the process of being doubted, especially at the microscopic level. If evolution isn't true, then the question would then become, "Why is there so much evidence to the contrary?" If we are completely secure in our belief in God, adapting to evolution should be the acknowledgement of God's awesome creation process. Obviously, I believe that God had his hand in evolution, guiding it, and most likely helping it to reach the state he wanted it. 

Just a side note. I've read on some peoples blogs that they would have their faith rocked if science confirmed abiogenesis. To me, I believe that we will perhaps find out how it could have happened, even if the odds are rather low. But I would not latch on that as a pillar of faith, because I believe God moves through the natural processes of the earth, instead of just spontaneously creating the first RNA.

I also believe the Bible lends itself to a non-literal creation account. First, in Genesis 1:13:

 "God said, "Let the land sprout with vegetation - every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit..."" 

This was on the third day of creation, with humans coming on day six. Obviously, this is the order it would have actually happened in natural history. However, in creation account two, we see in Genesis 2:5:

"Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil."

It then goes on in Genesis 2:7 to say how God formed the man from the dust of the ground. So in the two creation accounts, we see a differing of the order or plant-life/humankind. Some see a gray area to say that perhaps certain types of plants were made in the first creation account, while different plants didn't grow until the second creation account.

Next, we have the story of Cain. If we are to take Adam and Eve as the two literal first human beings, then the world population of humans goes from four to three when Cain kills Abel. In Genesis 4:13, upon hearing his punishment, Cain replies to the Lord,

"My punishment is too great for me to bear. You have banished me from the land and from your presence; you have made me a homeless wanderer. Anyone who finds me will kill me!"

If Adam and Eve are human number one and two, then the only persons that would be there to kill him would be his parents. It seems unimaginable that Cain would fear his parents killing him, and even more so that he would call his parents 'anyone.' This strongly implies there are more than just these three people on the earth. Also, I can't imagine God being okay with his only three prized, image bearing creations going around killing each other. Cain killed Abel, yes, but if Adam and Eve joined in on the action that is a different matter.

Finally, in Genesis 4:17, we find out that Cain gets married, has a son named Enoch, and founded a city, also called Enoch, after his son. First, we are not told that Adam and Eve started having more sons and daughters until later in Genesis, chapter five. So even if we accept that God was fine with Cain marrying his sister, which seems to go against later law, we still have to rearrange the text, and assume it was written non-chronologically to even get a sister into the equation. Finally, it seems the use of the word 'city' would not be used if they were referring to just a gathering of a few huts. And if he did really build a city, who was it for and how did he build it all by himself?

I haven't gone through the other books prior to the patriarchs, but just from this, I see things that make me question if the original intent of the author (assumed to be Moses) was actually as a historical account. To me, it seems to imply that Adam and Eve were not the two first human beings, but perhaps the first two humans that God revealed himself personally to. This is referred to on the BioLogos forum as the Homo Divinus model. If Adam and Eve were real people, it makes much more sense with the genealogies presented to us in Genesis, as well as the New Testament Gospel accounts. Religion at this time was most certainly not monotheistic, but looking back, the three big monotheistic religions of the world today are Abrahamic in their roots, even going back to Adam and Eve. It's hard to say if monotheism would ever have made it's way as the worlds primary form of theism without this connection.

I also don't believe evolution is imposing it's will on the Bible, in the sense that it's forcing people for the first time to reevaluate their position. Over a thousand years before evolution, St. Augustine commented on the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Here is a summary:

"In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up."

In the end, having all the right answers when it comes to evolution and creation isn't the main goal. Will God hold it against anyone if we interpret the Bible differently? One reason I do worry about the belief in strict creationism has to do with some of the characteristics I see in many atheists. Oftentimes, you see that an atheist was born and raised in a particular faith, only to find out, usually in their late teens or 20's, that their interpretation of the Bible may be at odds with science, or the opinions of others. This oftentimes can cause a complete revolt from religion when their beliefs are held too strictly. I sometimes talk about these kinds of things with my volleyball group on Tuesday nights, and I do so because I'd rather have them think about them now, discussing them in a setting where they know they can trust those around them, then out in the world where someone only wants to crush your faith. To me, that's what I want to try and help others avoid, even if it means challenging your beliefs. We cannot all see the same thing when we read the Bible, which is part of the beauty of it. To some extent, accepting that other interpretations could be right, I believe, lends itself towards flexibility, like St. Augustine remarked.

At most, science can only show us the 'how' of the world, and can help us better understand God's creation. The false dichotomy that exists between science and religion is in my opinion completely unwarranted. In the same way that the church abandoned an earth-centered model of the universe as an interpretation of Psalm 104:5:"You placed the world on its foundation," I believe the church will one day accept evolution as an illumination through science on the original intent of scripture. 

The below link contains good information for those looking to learn about science and the Bible, especially pertaining to creation:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

Kalam Cosmological Argument

While the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may sound complex, the premise is simple. It's quite possibly the most common argument used in debates today, and has been around since the time of St. Aquinas, however originating with the Islamic theologians of the Kalam tradition. Below you can see it in its form:

The Kalām cosmological argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

   Therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

I'd like to explain for those who aren't familiar with the argument the paths that can be taken when moving through the premises, and what it shows us.

Premise one states that "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." This, at first glance, seems about as trivial as it gets. When applied to the universe, it is most commonly thought of as the Big Bang. The Big Bang in itself would not be thought of as the cause, since we have no reason to believe a 'Big Bang' could cause itself. Oftentimes the definition of causality is brought up here as an objection, since typically a cause comes before the effect, and since the Big Bang is believed to be the beginning of both space and time, it is argued, there is no 'before,' per say, in reference to the Big Bang. This seems to dodge the point however. If one believes that the Big Bang doesn't need a cause, and just happened, we have no reason to believe another universe couldn't just spontaneously appear at any time. 


Furthermore, the first premise does not say, "Everything that exists has a cause," as is sometimes summarized in atheist-theist debates by the atheist side. The objection of, "What caused God?" inevitably comes up then, and this as seen as a never-ending argument showing nothing. But this is not how it is worded, since God, if he does indeed exist, does not have a beginning. Furthermore, it is worded carefully to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause, avoiding this oft brought up dilemma. 


Premise two also seems trivial if one is to accept the Big Bang theory as correct, but it could be that we are just seeing a small fraction of the entire universal history if the Big Bang is a reoccurring thing. I would reword premise (2) to state: The universe, or any form of the universe, has a beginning of its existence. Since the universe is defined as everything that exists this would encompass any other aspects, such as some pre-universal minefield of explosive ready-to-spawn universes, a cyclical model, where the universe is an oscillating from Big Bang to Big Bang, waves of energy that are eternally moving around, waiting to explode, aliens who learned how to create universes, etc, etc, till your imagination cannot think of any other way.


The most important part of this argument, however, is to note the logical and philosophical impossibility of an actual infinite regress of past events. This is exceedingly important, because it shows us that at some point time had to have begun. The typical example used for this is called Hilbert's Hotel, which I will illustrate like this. Say we choose to represent time in the past as persons in a hotel. If we want to represent ten years in the past, we would place ten people in the hotel. In order to get back to zero persons, or the present, we would take out person by person till we're back to zero. Makes enough sense. So if we are to represent an infinite regress, we would have to place an infinite many people in the hotel. Logistics of the analogy aside, you would never be able to reach the present, because you would always have an infinite amount of people still remaining in the hotel. No matter if you took out 1, 10 or a million people, you'd still by the definition of infinity still have an infinite amount of people in the hotel. The analogy is meant to show an actual infinite like this can't exist in nature.


You can also show this point many other ways, like lining up an infinite stack of dominoes, and picking one to be the 'present.' If you knocked down the first domino, you would have to traverse infinitely many dominoes to reach the present, and you'd never reach it. 


Or, if you want to prove it to someone you don't like - ask them to prove it for you by counting from negative infinity to zero. I'm sure they'll figure out soon enough it can't be done. 


This is used to show why any form of the universe cannot be infinite, and at some point must have had a cause. However we need a very special type of circumstance to explain this. We need something that is powerful enough to create a universe, and able to interact within time, in fact, to create time. However, we need this cause to not actually be a event in time itself, because then we would lead to a regress. For example, the cause itself  cannot be some 'waves of energy' as it was put by someone at my work. If the waves are finitely old, then they still just push back our need for a cause, but if they are infinity old, they violate the infinite progression. 


In terms of what we know of how things work, we need something that is more-or-less impossible to find. Something that is outside of time, yet able to interact with it, and immensely powerful, if not omnipotent. Whatever happened needed to decide to begin the universe in the finite past.


What I find most compelling is the lack of good responses to this, in my opinion. I've seen it refuted, but not by addressing the lack of an infinite regress. Some will maintain an infinite regress is possible, and if that's the case, then Kalam isn't that hard. But somehow you need to go from the infinite, or endless vat of time to the finite. It is argued that there is no time before the Big Bang - very well, that makes it easier. But if it is argued there was something happening, it would be causal, because something exists. I have a hard time seeing how to create time, at some point in the past, unless this was done intentionally, by something unhindered by time. I really can't see a way to avoid the problem of avoiding an infinite regress in any scenario, but perhaps i'm just naive.


After arriving at the conclusion of this argument, if you do accept those to premises as unavoidable,we can see that any possible universe would need an uncaused first cause, and no universe could exist without it. From this, the argument becomes somewhat like the Ontological Argument, something Kant addresses as to why he doesn't find the cosmological argument convincing (Kant was a theist though, but for other reasons). Kant, like others, will balk at the idea of a being being necessary. It's a hard concept to wrap one's head around, that God is in fact a necessary being.