That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Bluegoat]

The question I revolve around regarding Jesus, isn't whether he existed or not, but whether or not his mission was valid (i.e., sent to save the world through sacrifice). 

 

This is why evolution and the age of the world and all that is key for me.  I eventually rejected Christianity (although I am still open to the possibility of the existence of a deity), for multiple reasons.  Not the least of which are the unsatisfactory answers regarding whether Adam and Eve were actual historical persons.  To me, this is the salient point.

 

 Everything I have read in the Bible points back to Adam's sin, and Jesus as the Last Adam, as the reason for evil and solution to it encased in Christianity. I have also devoted a lot of time and reading to the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of this, and from what I can tell, theologians and scientists are attempting to reconcile two very opposed concepts. The idea that human kind descended from two individual humans rather than multiple populations of early hominids is in direct contradiction to scientific evidence. The Council of Trent elevated to dogma the teaching of Original Sin by propagation, and this dogma has only been further ensconced in RCC theology by Pople Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis:

 

 

 

 

But at least the RCC is wrestling with the apparent conflict between the body of evidence which shows that early hominid populations never suffered from a bottleneck of fewer than perhaps 10,000 individuals, and the Doctrine of Original Sin which states all humans descended from a population of merely two: Adam and Eve.

 

Other faith traditions range from avoiding the discussion to trying to come up with a theological solution to this problem. I have not been able to find any consistent treatment of this issue by the EO or by Protestants.  Liberal protestant churches such as certain Lutheran Synods, Presbyterian churches, Anglican/ Episcopalian, and Methodist churches seem more inclined to accept Adam and Eve as mythology, which then leads to a more metaphorical understanding of Jesus' mission on earth.  More conservative sects seem to go with an Old Earth/ divinely directed evolution, but no answer to how Adam and Eve play into this, as again, the consensus is that homo sapiens descended from multiple early hominid populations, and not a single pair of fully evolved human beings.

 

Anyway, not to send the thread on yet another spin, but I feel that this question of the evolutionary beginnings of human beings is absolutely germane to whether Jesus' existence even matters.

 

As far as how the evidence against a single pair of humans acting as parents for all humankind is treated by religions such as Judaism and Islam -- I am hoping to research those as well, although they each have multiple schools of thought, like Christianity.

 

 

 

ETA: I would like to add that the EO do not teach Original Sin, as such, and so I'm not sure how Adam's sin ties into Orthodox baptism.  Or, whether they believe the lack of grace inherent in the human condition (as a result of Adam's rift with God), is transmitted through propagation, as Western Christianity teaches regarding Original Sin.

 

The EO position on this has been less worked out, which is typical I think - they often don't feel the need to work things out like that in great detail.  There is some sense to that, I think - it's a subject where the precise details are probably unknowable, so it would be foolish to build a theological edifice on that - when they can say - we know that ultimatly there is no difference between God's purpose and the way the universe works.  And I think too that there has been less opportunity for it to happen - a lot of the earlier Orthodox commentaries on evolution are clearly working with bad information, so they are of limited use.  However IIRC athough they have a different way of looking at original sin, they do maintain like the Catholics that the physical body is an important aspect of it.

 

My understanding of the Catholic position is that there is no need at all for a bottleneck - only a set of two real people from whom we are all in fact decended - whether or not they comprised the whole of the population isn't particularly important - it may not even be important that they lived at the same time.   The only necessity is that we all carry that genetic material - which is not at all hard to credit, it's amazing if you go back even in a family tree that can be traced back a long way, how many people are in fact related. 

 

It's also not particularly important what sort of people they were - so long as they were in the Christian sense, people, they could be homo erectus or something else - scientific classification is a human abstraction and has arbitrary elements that are irrelevent from a divine perspective - (this also seems to be a problem for some YEC people who object to what they describe as things changing from one kind to another.)

 

Anyway - i think this may be part of what the Biblical geneologies are about - they aren't a way to try and show us precisly who lived when through all of time, but rather are a way of showing that we are in a real sense all cousins, members of an extended family.

 

 

This seems to happen all over the place though, not just in one group.  many people who would tell you they "believe in science" have some rather odd ideas about it.

 

Or have strong beliefs in things other than traditional religion which trump the scientific method.

 

Just today in the NYT, there was an article about a man who sued his neighbor, trying to force her remove her dimmer switches and fluorescent light bulbs, because claims to suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity, a malady that cannot be reproduced, and which consistently fails testing against placebo.  Yet, she's out six figures in legal fees defending herself: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/when-science-is-lost-in-a-legal-maze.html

[Bluegoat]

Or have strong beliefs in things other than traditional religion which trump the scientific method.

 

Just today in the NYT, there was an article about a man who sued his neighbor, trying to force her remove her dimmer switches and fluorescent light bulbs, because claims to suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity, a malady that cannot be reproduced, and which consistently fails testing against placebo.  Yet, she's out six figures in legal fees defending herself: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/when-science-is-lost-in-a-legal-maze.html

 

Oh wow.

 

The whole legal aspect of that is nutty, but that's sociatal nuttieness.

 

But there are lots of people out there that subscribe to some odd pseudo-science.  I actually find those people sometimes harder to figure out than people who have religious objections.  Though if you look at people who are against vaccinations but are very crunchy and non-religious, I think think the commonality is often that they don't trust the information coming from the research. 

 

I was thinking of something rather different though, somthing more like the philosophy of science.  Now of course that isn't going to be something everyone knows a lot about, but you would think basic science education would at least look at some of the main assumptions, the important components, major controversies around how science works.  If we need a population that can evaluate scientfic claims, doesn't that depend on them having some kind of grounding in these questions?  And yet, what you find is that a lot of people don't even know there is such a thing as the philosophy of science. 

 

I've even had people who were trying to argue that science was the only valid way to assess what is real say they did not think such a thing as the philosophy of science was possible, and often such people don't really even know the epistemological complications of such a position.   They don't actually even realize they are making an epistemological claim (and I don't care about the terminology, only the sense.)

 

That seems like a huge blind-spot to me.

 

There is also a tedency among some to claim that any critisism of science must be "anti-science".  So even if you get someone with quie a good repitation asking serious questions, they are simply dismissed as anti-science,

[Bluegoat]

dp

[albeto.]

There is also a tedency among some to claim that any critisism of science must be "anti-science".  So even if you get someone with quie a good repitation asking serious questions, they are simply dismissed as anti-science,

 

In the context of YEC, a systematic dismissal or rejection of the scientific method and subsequently known facts in order to maintain a faith-based belief is by definition anti-science. YEC doesn't just criticize science, it dismisses it as being less credible than a particular interpretation of a particular religious belief. 

[Slartibartfast]

Or have strong beliefs in things other than traditional religion which trump the scientific method.

 

Just today in the NYT, there was an article about a man who sued his neighbor, trying to force her remove her dimmer switches and fluorescent light bulbs, because claims to suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity, a malady that cannot be reproduced, and which consistently fails testing against placebo.  Yet, she's out six figures in legal fees defending herself: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/when-science-is-lost-in-a-legal-maze.html

 

That is horrifying.

 

Wait....does that mean I can sue owners of Bradford pears? 

[Pen]

Maybe this has been covered and I missed it, but how does the issue of whether Jesus was or was not known personally by any of the authors of the Bible relate to how old the Earth is?

[Pen]

Or have strong beliefs in things other than traditional religion which trump the scientific method.

 

Just today in the NYT, there was an article about a man who sued his neighbor, trying to force her remove her dimmer switches and fluorescent light bulbs, because claims to suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity, a malady that cannot be reproduced, and which consistently fails testing against placebo.  Yet, she's out six figures in legal fees defending herself: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/when-science-is-lost-in-a-legal-maze.html

 

 

I personally think the EMF issue is more in the category of tobacco dangers, asbestos dangers, and at one point germ theory...   It is actually a real problem, but there is tremendous money on the side of wanting it not to be.  As with lead paint in the past where USA was way behind in getting it banned, other countries are ahead of us in better EMF controls.  There IS actually science that is not (as alas most is) paid for by the industry that has shown that EMFs have negative effects on biological systems. (In fact also sometimes they can have positive effects as in use to combat some tumors.  But they do have action with biological effects.)   

 

However, this seems to be a way way off rabbit trail.   Maybe start a separate thread on this subject?

[KarenC]

I'm going to try to clarify what I think is the disconnect, and I'm going to use a somewhat lame example, but I think it will sufficiently illustrate (so please don't jump all over me.  I'm just trying to help here).

 

What she is saying is that the evidence supports that there were followers and believers but it does not prove the existence of Jesus himself.  I liken it to saying that there are tons of children who believe in the tooth fairy (I know, I know; bear with me here).  There are stories about the tooth fairy.  Heck, there's even movies about the tooth fairy.  But that doesn't make the tooth fairy real.  Legions of "believers" will tell you she/he is real, and they'll have wonderful stories about how their best friend once got $20 for a single tooth, and they'll have their own questions such as why did they themselves not ever get $20, but none of that proves the existence of the tooth fairy.  But there, that $20 bill IS the evidence of the tooth fairy.  All those kids believing IS the evidence.  Or not.

 

And now I'm going to go hide in my cave and watch from a safe distance.  Please don't beat me up over my childish analogy.  I just thought it might help to clarify.

I agree with you.  

 

Science is based on data.  Religion is based on faith.  The problem starts when someone tries to validate beliefs based on faith based "facts".  The two are totally different and can't be treated equally.

[Onceuponatime]

Maybe this has been covered and I missed it, but how does the issue of whether Jesus was or was not known personally by any of the authors of the Bible relate to how old the Earth is?

I think it has to do with the historical accuracy of the bible as a whole, which was claimed to be exceptional by another poster.

 

In a way, one subject leads to another. If the earth is billions of years old, evolution becomes more probable. If humans are part of evolution, there was no historical Adam and Eve, so no fall from grace. If there was no fall from grace, no need for a savior. If there was no need for a savior, then Jesus wasn't divine. If he wasn't divine then someone was deluded. If one person was deluded, a whole bunch of people could have been deluded and maybe he was just a legendary figure. Anyway, that is one way to look at it. But technically you are right, Jesus's existence doesn't really have anything directly to do with the age of the earth.

[albeto.]

I agree with you.  

 

Science is based on data.  Religion is based on faith.  The problem starts when someone tries to validate beliefs based on faith based "facts".  The two are totally different and can't be treated equally.

 

Yeah, and I think Dragon's example is a very apt one. It's easy enough to see how readily we dismiss a belief we don't accept as being true, but the same principle applies between belief in the tooth fairy and belief that an otherworldly being created the earth pretty much as-is. It's one of the many ways our brain gets in the way when trying to think: we tend to assume our experiences are indicative of a universal reality, rather than subjective perceptions based on any number of complex, interwoven variables. It's why the scientific method has developed in the way it did, and why it's a reliable means for extracting accurate information (politics of gathering and using that information notwithstanding).