Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

In rereading the posts, I sense that some participants are dualists.
To speak of something "immaterial" that God installed in a physical
creature is to be a dualist. If we allow dualism, we can do all kinds
of interesting things theologically. Unfortunately dualism is not
considered a viable option any more so we are stuck with having to
take seriously that "sin" is coded in our genes and has an actual
physical aspect.

2008/6/10 karl.w.giberson@enc.edu <gibersok@gmail.com>:
> I am uncomfortable with the statement "Sin is a theological concept &
> has to do first with our relationship with God" if it detaches sin
> from our human nature and turns it into something "non-empirical."
> This seems dualistic to me. I think human rejection of God is
> motivated by our human natures, which evolved to be selfish. We can
> bring mystery on board and say things like "The crucial question,
> however, is
>> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God and
>> God's will," but, if we take this route, we will find it hard to make much use of what we know from science.
>
> Do I understand you to be saying that sin is only an issue in our
> relation to God, and not to the creation?
>
> 2008/6/10 George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>:
>> For a start (& certainly not he most important point here), Chesterton &
>> others who say that the doctrine of original sin has empirical proof are
>> wrong. Sin is a theological concept & has to do first with our relationship
>> with God. We know empirically that people do lots of nasty things, but
>> whether or not we fear, love & trust in the true God above all things isn't
>> something that can be determined quite so easily. The genetic & behavioral
>> background of early humans indeed hadcomponents tending them toward
>> violence, sexual promiscuity & deceit. The crucial question, however, is
>> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God and
>> God's will.
>>
>> Then yes, we are deeply & profoundly sinful. That's why Augustine was right
>> & Pelagius wrong, quite apart from questions about why, how or when that
>> sinful condition originated. But sin is not essential to who we are as
>> creatures of God. That's why Article I of the Formula of Concord, while it
>> emphatically rejects anything smelling of Pelagianiam, also rejected the
>> view of Flacius that sin was of the essence of fallen humanity. & part of
>> making that distinction is to say that human sinfulness had a beginning,
>> that the first humans (& how widely spread a group that is in space & time
>> is unknown) who had some awareness of God's will for them, chose to go in
>> another direction.
>>
>> Genesis 3 is, as is often said, the story of every person. But we can't
>> ignore the canonical structure of scripture which places that story at the
>> very beginning. Since it is the story of every person it is the story of
>> the first persons.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu"
>> <gibersok@gmail.com>
>> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Stephen
>> Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>; "Steve Martin"
>> <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?
>>
>>
>>> David:
>>>
>>> You have framed the question in a very clear and helpful way. My
>>> thinking on this is as follows: all the evidence suggests that our
>>> species and its predecessors shared a steadily evolving gene pool.
>>> This gene pool contained the raw material out of which our physical,
>>> mental and even spiritual natures arise. It is hard to even imagine
>>> what it would mean for God to choose an "agent" and then do something
>>> with this agent that would then spread to all subsequent offspring.
>>> What would happen, for example, to the contemporaries of this agent?
>>> This is not what a literal reading of Genesis suggests and it doesn't
>>> fit naturally into the scientific picture, so what do we have to
>>> commend it? It seems to me that the "Fall" can be understood as that
>>> part of our human natures that evolved to exhibit a pathological
>>> selfishness. As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
>>> doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
>>> through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
>>> story. The reality of our sinful natures is a deep theological insight
>>> and one that we should appreciate. There were times in history—think
>>> Rousseau and Marx—when philosophers dismissed the idea of "natural"
>>> sinfulness and ridiculed the biblical insight. But nobody would do
>>> that now. We now understand, as the author of Genesis and the apostle
>>> Paul both did, that we are deeply and profoundly sinful. I see no
>>> reason to insist that the fall be anything more than an affirmation
>>> that this is indeed a true picture of the human condition. (It is
>>> also the reason why "second work of grace" theology always struck me
>>> as suspect, although I am, to a first approximation, a Wesleyan.)
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
> www.karlgiberson.com
> Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
> Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
> Phone: 781-801-2189
> Fax: 617-847-5933
>
> "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
> jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
>

-- 
Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
www.karlgiberson.com
Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
Phone: 781-801-2189
Fax: 617-847-5933
 "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.