Succinct Defense of Primitive Fall

[Whag]

Credit to rogue for finding this quote and posting it in another thread in Civics. It was written by the dean of a conservative theological seminary circa 1930.

"Instead of militating against the idea of a primitive fall, the discovery of the law of evolution confirms it by showing that at some time, as the moral sense in man arose, in the very earliest stage of his existence as man, by an act of his own will, he set aside the new and better principle of conduct presented to him in his inner consciousness (disobeyed the voice of God), and fell back to the prehuman non-moral rule of his life. If this is not the doctrine of the Fall expressed in the terms of present-day science, it would be hard to conceive how that doctrine could be formulated in modern words."

This seems to me a great way to defend one's belief in a fall without having to fight the findings of evolution. I've heard it expressed before, but not so succinctly as this. Through this view, when we lie, harm, and kill, we're relenting to our animal drives and not heeding God's voice, which is the only thing that makes us distinct from the animal kingdom.

[Doug Shaver]

It was written by the dean of a conservative theological seminary circa 1930.

Nice try, but it sounds to me not so much like a fall as like a failure to rise. Nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that we were ever, at any time in our history, better behaved than we are now.

"Instead of militating against the idea of a primitive fall, the discovery of the law of evolution confirms it by showing that at some time, as the moral sense in man arose, in the very earliest stage of his existence as man, by an act of his own will, he set aside the new and better principle of conduct presented to him in his inner consciousness (disobeyed the voice of God), and fell back to the prehuman non-moral rule of his life. If this is not the doctrine of the Fall expressed in the terms of present-day science, it would be hard to conceive how that doctrine could be formulated in modern words."

I'm OK with the idea that we have always had some kind of moral sense. And, those who believe in God are welcome to assume that we got it from him. I'm not OK with the idea that we originally paid perfect attention to our moral sense and then decided at some point to start ignoring it.

Also, just by the way, there is no such thing, at least among scientists, as a "law of evolution."

[Whag]

Nice try, but it sounds to me not so much like a fall as like a failure to rise. Nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that we were ever, at any time in our history, better behaved than we are now.

Yes, I find that idea wishful thinking on the theist's part.

I'm OK with the idea that we have always had some kind of moral sense. And, those who believe in God are welcome to assume that we got it from him. I'm not OK with the idea that we originally paid perfect attention to our moral sense and then decided at some point to start ignoring it.

He seems to presume a paradisical time that represents the literal Garden of Eden in which hominids did not war with each other and received provisions without having to work for them? One must presume that time was so short it left no record.

The idea that early human beings received bounty without toil sounds preposterous to me in hindsight.

Also, just by the way, there is no such thing, at least among scientists, as a "law of evolution."

Well, it was 1930. I'll give him a break for that.

[Doug Shaver]

He seems to presume a paradisical time that represents the literal Garden of Eden in which hominids did not war with each other and received provisions without having to work for them? One must presume that time was so short it left no record.

The idea that early human beings received bounty without toil sounds preposterous to me in hindsight.

As a way to reconcile Genesis with science, it's a mighty long reach. "Paradise didn't last long" can work to explain the absence of evidence, but he still has to justify the supposition that there was a paradise even for a short time. I see no way to do that without presupposing something akin to scriptural inerrancy. There is no other reason I know of to suspect there was ever a time when we could feed ourselves without hard work, and when the hard work didn't include occasional warfare.

[magellan004]

As a way to reconcile Genesis with science, it's a mighty long reach. "Paradise didn't last long" can work to explain the absence of evidence, but he still has to justify the supposition that there was a paradise even for a short time. I see no way to do that without presupposing something akin to scriptural inerrancy. There is no other reason I know of to suspect there was ever a time when we could feed ourselves without hard work, and when the hard work didn't include occasional warfare.

The sages, seers and mystics have taught us about the Golden Age and the seven ages of man for thousands of years. It's in our memory.


Magellan

[Whag]

The sages, seers and mystics have taught us about the Golden Age and the seven ages of man for thousands of years. It's in our memory.


Magellan

Do tell.

[shunyadragon]

The sages, seers and mystics have taught us about the Golden Age and the seven ages of man for thousands of years. It's in our memory.


Magellan

They also described dragons, elves, fairies, and unicorns, and they are no more a part of the real past than some sort of 'Golden Age' where humans were not simply human. Actually the Oriental legends from the Neolithic and before do not share this view of a time when humans were without violence, death and sin.

[Whag]

They also described dragons, elves, fairies, and unicorns, and they are no more a part of the real past than some sort of 'Golden Age' where humans were not simply human. Actually the Oriental legends from the Neolithic and before do not share this view of a time when humans were without violence, death and sin.

I've never heard evidence that human beings enjoyed a utopian time of no strife.

[magellan004]

They also described dragons, elves, fairies, and unicorns, and they are no more a part of the real past than some sort of 'Golden Age' where humans were not simply human. Actually the Oriental legends from the Neolithic and before do not share this view of a time when humans were without violence, death and sin.

Are you now going to deny that unicorns existed?

Magellan

[Doug Shaver]

The sages, seers and mystics have taught us about the Golden Age and the seven ages of man for thousands of years.

So? Just who are these "sages, seers and mystics"? Do we have good reason to suppose that they had any actual knowledge of what the human condition was, more than a generation or so prior to their own lifetimes? Is there any factual evidence for how they would have acquired this knowledge?

It's in our memory.

Not in mine, it isn't. Yours, maybe, but how did it get there?

[magellan004]

So? Just who are these "sages, seers and mystics"? Do we have good reason to suppose that they had any actual knowledge of what the human condition was, more than a generation or so prior to their own lifetimes? Is there any factual evidence for how they would have acquired this knowledge?

We are (essentially) talking about wisdom. I am not sure what 'factual evidence' anyone can give for wisdom except what they say. Take it or reject it. It's up to each of us. But your rejecting does not mean the same as 'It doesn't exist.'

( Ed Memory of the Golden Age )Not in mine, it isn't. Yours, maybe, but how did it get there?

The seers, sages and mystics teach us that it is in all of our memory.
I suppose some universal force put it there.

Magellan

[Cerebrum123]

As a way to reconcile Genesis with science, it's a mighty long reach. "Paradise didn't last long" can work to explain the absence of evidence, but he still has to justify the supposition that there was a paradise even for a short time. I see no way to do that without presupposing something akin to scriptural inerrancy. There is no other reason I know of to suspect there was ever a time when we could feed ourselves without hard work, and when the hard work didn't include occasional warfare.

If you DO go with Biblical inerrancy(a lot of people don't know what it is, so if you don't mind I would like to know what you think it means), then you have only 2 people EVER having lived during the time when there would have been an essentially perfect world. So, how are two people going to leave much evidence of society? Also, a while after that you have a global flood that destroy all but 8 people, and the animals they took on board the ark.

[Whag]

If you DO go with Biblical inerrancy(a lot of people don't know what it is, so if you don't mind I would like to know what you think it means), then you have only 2 people EVER having lived during the time when there would have been an essentially perfect world. So, how are two people going to leave much evidence of society? Also, a while after that you have a global flood that destroy all but 8 people, and the animals they took on board the ark.

Except for the fact that there was no global flood. Global floods themselves leave evidence, of which there is none.

[Doug Shaver]

I am not sure what 'factual evidence' anyone can give for wisdom except what they say.

OK. If I am told that some person X is wise (and this applies if I am told so by X himself), I look for evidence in the reasoning they employ to reach whatever conclusions they assert. If X says, for instance, "There was a time when all of humanity lived in peace," I look for him to say somewhere, ". . . and I know this because _____." If I don't find that, and if I cannot find anyone else who can tell me, plausibly, how X came by his alleged knowledge of the past, then I am left with no reason to trust X when he talks about human history.

Wisdom is a matter of judgment, and wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing. History is a matter of knowable (albeit often unknown) facts. If the wisest man in the world speaks of matters about which he lacks knowledge, his opinions are no more reliable than those of a fool.

But your rejecting does not mean the same as 'It doesn't exist.'

Of course my rejection of any hypothesis does not, by itself, prove it false. My opinion about anything is proof of nothing. That doesn't mean it can't be a justified opinion.

The seers, sages and mystics teach us that it is in all of our memory.

Their saying so doesn't make it so. I am not the only person unaware of having such a memory, and that is a good (not conclusive, but good) reason for me and the others to suspect that those seers etc. are mistaken.

I suppose some universal force put it there.

Given a presupposition that such a force exists, that is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

[Doug Shaver]

a lot of people don't know what it [biblical inerrancy] is, so if you don't mind I would like to know what you think it means

Most of the time, I'm referring to the doctrine as set forth in the Chicago Statement, because it appears to me that most people who claim to be inerrantists go with that one. However, if I'm talking with someone who uses the term to mean something different, I'll usually go along with them for purposes of that particular conversation. Since I don't accept any version of inerrancy, I don't think it's my place to decide which is the right one for Christians to be using.

So, how are two people going to leave much evidence of society?

They're probably not going to leave any. But nonexistent evidence cannot prove anything, and it doesn't make any difference if we can think of a good reason for it not to exist. If there is no evidence, then I think I'm at least as justified in disbelieving as you are in believing, if you believe.

Also, a while after that you have a global flood that destroy all but 8 people, and the animals they took on board the ark.

There is no evidence for that event, either.

Or rather, the only evidence for it is that we have some ancient documents saying it happened. Please excuse me if I regard that evidence as insufficient.