> Our knowledge of human evolution strongly
> suggests that the first
> humans would have inherited tendencies toward sexual
> promiscuity, theft,
> violence and, in general, selfishness. (By
> "inherited" I do not mean
> just strictly genetic but also include cultural
> conditioning.) If this
> is true then "original righteousness" could mean
> only the theoretical
> possibility of them not sinning.
The problem in this regard is we do not know what the
condition of the first moral agents were for a couple
reasons. First, we don't know when or how moral
agency appeared in evolutionary time. Second, even if
we could pinpoint it, there is no obvious way to make
a determination whether those people lived in original
righteousness or not. What archaeological evidence
would show this? So, I think it is a little
presumptuous to say that not sinning was only a
theoretical possibility, although I sympathize with
that sentiment.
I think there is perhaps an over playing of some of
our nearest primate relatives as an analogue to
humans. This stems from the fact that the primate you
choose as a comparison will result in different
conclusions. Depending on the sins you want to
address, you get different "propensities" to sin
depending on which primates you look at. Bonobos, for
example, engage in promiscuity, but very little
violence. Chimpanzees display more violence. Some
primates display fidelity in mating relationships,
etc. All of these are imperfect analogues and we can
only speculate about the lineage of humans and what
propensities there were in that lineage before humans
became moral agents. This underscores the difficulty
of saying which sins were "inevitable."
> Sin would have
> been - to use a
> distinction I think of R. Niehbuhr "inevitable"
> though not "necessary."
Of course, the inevitability of humans sinning has
been discussed by theology long before evolution came
into our scientific picture of the world. For
example, in discussion of God's foreknowledge of the
Fall, etc. Indeed, the Christian traditions all hold
(to different degrees) that we are incapable of
righteousness without God's working in our life
through Christ and/or the Holy Spirit.
> Acts which were not sinful before, because their
> ancestors were not
> moral agents, would have been sinful when they
> became moral agents.
> (I.e., it's kind of like the distinction that is
> supposed to be made in
> the classic insanity defence.)
Yes, exactly.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 10:18:35 EDT