Christians Believing Badly

[NormATive]

That'd be the view that the first couple came from hominids. They became the first human couple having been enspirited. Plantinga is a popularizer of this teleology:


"Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin."

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.c...ible-scenario/

Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

[Tassman]

well, I just reached behind me, a book I cited back in October
PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN EVOLUTION 2003 Roger Lewin, Robert A. Foley ISBN 0632047046
and on page 375 there seems to be a problem with the Omo finds, a little dispute about "provenance"

I don't feel like typing this , this late, so I just whip out the ole smart phone and pic it
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3669[/ATTACH]

What's the point you are attempting to make here?

[Tassman]

Assuming God chose two hominids among thousands to infuse with spirit is presumptive to the extreme. I'd call that conjecture, not inference.

Assuming that Plantinga thought the hominid stock from which the first couple was pulled was "less than human" (because they lacked the image of God) isn't presumptive to the extreme. That's just inferring that the non-divinely imprinted hominids were lower than the divine image bearers.

But why you would assume that there was a “first couple” at all? Or that any hominid was ever divinely imprinted with the image of God? Why would you think this? There is no scientific evidence that supports such a scenario nor is there any reason, outside of the Adam and Eve myth, to even think it might be the case. In fact there is a great deal of evidence militating against it.

“…some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

As a Christian, I for one, believe both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit. The chief difference being humans are made in God's image. [Having the given ability to design and understand design.]

Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?

[Tassman]

Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

Doesn't it though! And yet, even though Scientology arose relatively recently, many thousands believe it all despite there being no scientific evidence supporting it whatsoever - as per the Genesis mythology.

[Adrift]

But why you would assume that there was a “first couple” at all? Or that any hominid was ever divinely imprinted with the image of God? Why would you think this? There is no scientific evidence that supports such a scenario nor is there any reason, outside of the Adam and Eve myth, to even think it might be the case. In fact there is a great deal of evidence militating against it.

“…some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

[37818]

Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?

Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

[whag]

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

[Adrift]

Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

[Juvenal]

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

[Adrift]

I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

Are you messing with me? You're messing with me, aren't chu.

And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

I can only handle so much crazy in one day, and Mickiel threads are over my quota.

[whag]

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

You needn't clarify. I think he knew I wasn't a theist being my friend. Tass just has a unique way of expressing himself sometimes (I think he's questioning Plantinga's A&E postulation through me), but I'm pretty sure he knows I'm a skeptic.

Stop fomenting discord between us. Now I wanna bop his nose and call his mother rude names.

[Tassman]

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal.

[Tassman]

Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

So your belief that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit" is a faith belief, unsupported by substantive evidence. OK. But I see no reason to believe it; quite the reverse.

[whag]

Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal.

I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

And, yes, Plantinga's teleology is full of holes. I think the best approach in terms of level of persuasiveness isn't the one where a first couple is imagined.

[Adrift]

I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.