Greg Cootsona: "Mere Science" and Adam's Empty Chair

Could you explain this a bit more for me. In terms of inference to best explanation (IBE), could you quickly map the data points leading to the Non-historical Adam inference? Also, I was intrigued by your mention of space-time fall. What is the ontology (epistemology?) of the fall when it isn’t linked to hisotical Adam? Thanks!

1 Like

Yes, thoughts similar to this are driving at my clarifying questions @Cootsona. Although, my initial thought/concern was not so much a figurative Jesus, but a “no need for Jesus.” Crudely, Figurative Adam = figurative sin = no need for Jesus, hence my interest in what sin’s ontology looks like under Greg’s view.

I think we can all agree that any conversation is geared at changing people’s minds. We all think too much is at stake to not engage in the various questions raised on this blog and attempt winning people over so to speak. However, I think one of the key goals is to have a public record of conversations concerning controversial subjects that illustrates fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue. The dialogue may not terminate in a consensus or correct view, but it happened in the public square and was not hijacked or given over to the black abyss that is most internet discussions. The public record of “peaceful” conversations is fruit enough as a model of what ought to be more broadly possible. Cheers!

3 Likes

@fuglega thanks for engaging.

Sure, I can give permission to try and persuade me. I will consider very carefully everything you post. Make your best case.

However I am not sure you know my position. Ill give two examples from the last post.

Im not sure I agree. What you are describing here sounds like a cheap and inauthentic peace. Civility is not an end goal to work towards in my view. I instead focus on truthfulness (even if it leads to conflict) and living in family (even though proximity breeds conflict). Perhaps we mean different things by constructive dialogue, because I observe the most constructive conversation are not always civil. The most civil conversations are not always honest.

This brings me to a bewildering comment by you that seems to demonstrate you do not understand me…

The de novo Genealogical Adam is 100% consistent with the common descent of man. I also affirm the common descent of man. Why would you set up these two claims as if they are in conflict?

Using the same syllogism, we could also object…

I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, even if your genealogical model allows for it. I see an acceptance of evolutionary history for organisms, including humans, as the only reasonable conclusion.

Or also…

I don’t believe in the Bodily Ressurection, even if your genealogical model allows for it. I see an acceptance of evolutionary history for organisms, including humans, as the only reasonable conclusion.

Of course you dont go there, This is a reducto ad absurdum. The logical leap between those two sentences is both the definition of a non-sequitor, and is easily perceived as an aggressive misrepresentation of science.

I get you personally see no Scriptural warrant for de novo Adam. That is fine. I am not trying to change your mind. What, however, gives us any of us the right to imply a conflict with science that is non-existant? Such subservience of science to theological agenda undermines peace, does it not?

1 Like

To Philosurfer,
Sorry, I’m not sure what IBE, please clarify.

In shorthand, I’ll use Darwin (thus about 1859 with his Origin ) as a boundary, which we could certainly nuance. After Darwin, theologians began to work at ways in which Adam and Eve as the first humans had to be reworked. It appeared that human beings had descended from a lineage of hominids and therefore that there was never a first pair created directly by God (thus they had no human parents), and theologians began to work out a theological system, derived from the Bible, in which sin is in the world and in which Christ came to save, but didn’t depend on this first couple.

And this leads to your other question: The ontology then is one in which, with the emergence of self-consciousness (or simply consciousness), all human beings, like Adam and Eve could decide consciously to follow God or not. This is the shift in ontology. In this way, as many commentators on Adam and Eve in the intertestamental period worked out, every human being works out the sin of Adam and Eve. They are types for what all human beings do–we sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). And for that human crisis, Jesus of Nazareth, fully God and fully man, comes to bring restoration and salvation.

Does that answer your question?

1 Like

Josh,
I’m now returning to these questions…

Why specifically do you think the inference to best explanation is not to a historical Adam?

We see that in the Genesis 1-3 texts, the word adam is used both as a generic and as a proper name, or at least the name of a character in the text. Put another way, the word adam in Hebrew simply means “human” generically and is often used in these texts with the article, thus “the human.” Eve” means “mother of the living” or “life.” Thus that their proper names were not “Adam” and “Eve.” Their names are essentially “Human” and “Life,” or as New Testament scholar Scot McKnight—emphasizing different nuances in the original Hebrew—phrases it, “Dusty” and Momma.” Moreover, if this pair lived even six thousand years ago, it is improbable that they spoke Hebrew, which didn’t come into existence until at least a couple thousand years later. This signals that Adam and Eve don’t really come off as proper names, but as symbolic or typological ones. This is a signal the nature of the text indicates we shouldn’t interpret them literally. (Here I’m taking a natural over a literal interpretation.)

And respectively, I’m also surprised by a willingness of those who see an historical Adam and Eve in these texts then also eschew or ignore other clear features of the narrative. It strikes me as a position that lacks consistency, and even integrity, to affirm the historical Adam and Eve, but to cast out key biblical affirmations such their special creation by God ( Yahweh Elohim ) in Genesis 2:7 and that this occurs in the ancient near east in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:8, 1-14. How does a person decide to take some core elements of the narrative literally, but not others?

In terms of the science behind human development, I’m essentially convinced that science doesn’t entirely disprove the possibility of a first pair to which we are all geneaologically related. On the other hand, it certainly doesn’t prove that to be the case. Stated another way, the only reason that we are concerned with this original pair living in Mesopotamia around 6,000-10,000 is our biblical and theological tradition. Instead, and what is most fitting with the various sciences that bear, there appears to be a bottleneck of about 5,000-10,000, but not a single pair, many thousands of years before the time table of Genesis 1-3 (And yet, the problem is that the theological tradition has been built on that first, specially created pair 6,000-10,000 years ago.)

The inference to the best explanation (which I’ll just sketch here) is that Homo sapiens (or Homo sapiens sapiens ) evolved as a group from other hominins, and at some point, gained self-consciousness between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. In this period, human beings were able to respond to God consciously and decided to rebel. This is what we read in Genesis 1-3. And thus we begin the story of humankind…

And, by the way, I’m happy to address other questions besides Adam and Eve that arise from my book, which is why the next questions—which are not in the book—are still welcome.

Could you tell us more how your thoughts on race are developing? What you been coming to understand? You ran the Scientists in Congregations program. How did you deal with the disparity in African American Churches there?

I would affirm again that, as a white male, I need to listen, listen, listen because too often white males have spoken with far too many self-assured answers. But, since you ask, I will speak: I am learning (as in conversation with your pastor and colleague, Brent Roam) that race is largely construct sociologically and not from primarily from natural science. And this construction has been to been used to oppress various people throughout the ages of human history. Consider that to the Greeks, all others are “barbarians,” which means that they sounded like “bar, bar, bar” when they spoke their “weird” languages (i.e., tongues other than Greek). For Jews, everyone else was a goy and sometimes a “dog” (and we need to remember that dogs were rarely pets in ancient times, but scavenger animals roaming through towns). In the Gospel, we know that it’s about breaking down walls (Ephesians 2:14), where there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28).

We didn’t do was much in specifically reaching out to African American churches in SinC (Scientists in Congregations), http://www.scientistsincongregations.org, but worked more with STEAM (Science and Theology for Emerging Adult Ministries), http://thesteamproject.org. Still, the talk of “science and faith” sounds off-putting to many churches that aren’t primarily white. Nonetheless, I did find that African Americans seem more interested in promoting STEM education—which is part of God’s calling to the sciences and various forms of technology. I also heard more about health care as an issue and how it, as a form of science, is justly or unjustly available. Those are a few notes. I hope to sprinkle more in future responses.

Thanks for the questions…

2 Likes

3 posts were split to a new topic: Side Comments on Greg Cootsona

I’m going to step back a bit and see if I can move the topic in a slightly different direction–which still bears on the historical Adam and Eve–but also addresses how we do theology and science.

How do you respond to this excerpt from Mere Science and Christian Faith?

We know that God is not ultimately demonstrable through natural science. God’s fingers, as it were, won’t poke through a laboratory experiment. In fact, since I advocate for dual causation (which I’ll explain in a moment), I believe we want to keep a measure of independence between faith and science. As nice as many pastors are, scientist don’t need them in the lab sprinkling holy water on their experiments or providing 24/7 spiritual encouragement.

Though I advocate for integration, independence has a place. If God is going to work in the natural world, he will often do so through natural means. (Though obviously a miracle like the resurrection is a direct act of God without natural causes.) One tried-and-true way to understand this is dual causation. We can speak of an event through two means—God’s and the world’s. For example, when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, “Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land” (Exodus 14:21). Did God or nature do it? Yes—both are necessary to describe the event. Similarly, consider Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” When God knits us together in our mother’s womb, that divine work also occurs through natural processes. This is a useful perspective. We should not use science to prove God’s existence, and there is no uniquely Christian way to bring water to the boiling point or to map the human genome.

1 Like

The language that has been starting to make sense of for me is a juxtaposition. It is surprising, because the components seem disparate, but it is coherent because there is a hidden order.

Faith, Science and Injustice

The juxtaposition of these domains, and the connections between them, seem to be a welcoming entry point for non-white communities.

This juxtaposition illuminates. As one example the rhetoric and theology of injustice we find in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is grounded in creation theology, and particular conception of Original Sin and the Image of God. MLK also wrote often about the relationship between science and faith, as he navigated the rift between the modernists like Fosdick and fundamentalists like Bob Jones. To situation this historically, the ASA was founded one or two years before MLK was assassinated, by a group of white YECs more aligned with Bob Jones than MLK.

This year, the 50th year anniversary of MLK assassination, and not one faith-science organization I’ve seen has deeply engaged with MLK’s creation theology this year. Not one leading (white) scholar in this space has noted his passing and engaged the outsized influence of his work on the doctrine of creation. Of course, I stand to be corrected. Pleas show me I am wrong. What, however, are we to make of this disconnection from a real history.

At the ASA this year too, there were 5 plenary speakers: all where white. The topic was “Bioengineering,” not a topic that engages the questions of the black church. The only time MLK was mentioned was in a pre-conference e workshop by me. I’m not saying this to pick on ASA in particular. The YEC International Conference on Creation would be no different (http://www.creationicc.org/). I have to wonder, if some of the towering culture influence of MLK is ignored, who else is being ignored too? It certainly does raise questions about basic fairness, sensitivity, and…yes…justice.

The juxtaposition of faith, science, and injustice, it seems to bring this to the foreground. At least to me. I appreciate also your understanding that the name above the door itself “science and theology,” is exclusionary. It seems we need to do a deep reworking of our language here.

I do wonder if the answer might come from connections more than changing topics.

It is abundantly clear that questions about theology of Adam are almost entirely concerns of white Christians. One temptation is to abandon these questions, to focus instead on race. I wonder, instead, if a better approach would fearlessly work out the connection between original sin, the fall, and the racial injustice of the segregated world. This approach brings the esoteric concerns of a privileged community into dialogue with the pragmatic realities of a disempowered community. If we believe the true name of things in theology, we might even find resources in which to embody the language of God in the realities of a broken and unjust world.

As crazy as this might sound, I wonder if some of the conversations we are having about Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin might bring the Church together into a coherent, public, and theological voice on injustice. I might be through the reconciliation of these two understandings of creation that we find the Church’s message in our moment…

What are you thoughts on that @Cootsona?

1 Like

This hits on one of our core concerns. To protect the neutrality of science, we need to give it autonomy. To protect theology, also, it has legitimate autonomy too. I’ve been starting to write about this more, using the metaphor of dialogue. Good dialogue requires constructive resistance. What is legitimate constructive resistance though? How can science press on theology? How can theology press on science?

There are two things I see.

  1. Autonomy of language. Science and theology both have legitimate autonomy to use words in different ways, in ways that are internally consistent even they come into conflict with each other.

  2. Legitimacy of questions. Science and theology both have autonomy to question each other. Such question should be taken seriously, even though they arise from an external source.

From that starting point. There seems to be an opportunity for real understanding to grow. We should, however, grant that theology and science are not expected to speak univocally. They will say different things. This is as much a multicultural conversation as it is multilingual.

Taking this as a starting point. I notice your explication is about intellectual integration, and this is in line with the overarching themes of the area. Conversations on science and theology focus on intellectual integration. I’m concerned about this framing, for two reasons.

First, it does not give good grounding for paradox, and for apparent contradictions to legitimately stand.

Second, and much more importantly, the focus on intellectual integration is usually to the exclusion of an incarnational integration, the integration of ones life as follower of Jesus in science and theology. In the end, we have a lot of intellectual arguments, but not many confessing scientists. With so many Christians privately doing scientific work, we see so few scientists in the Church and Christians in science. This, it seems, is the incarnational vocation that is lost in a focus on intellectual integration.

So yes, I agree that independence between science and theology is important. Though I wonder if there is a bigger opportunity here. Did you address this at any point in your book @Cootsona?

1 Like

Josh,
I’d begin again here with my need to listen. I think the theology of Adam does have a preponderance of white Christians, but as long as it’s set within most theology and science domains, that’ll be the case in any number of topics.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of creation, and particularly that we are all made in God’s image, is the basis for the dignity and inherent worth of all human beings. Acts 17:26 says that we are all from “one” (“blood” was added in later manuscripts), and that could mean of one kind, but it has been the theological basis for the repugnance of racism. I enjoyed what we discussed in our conversations about this at ASA. I would also add that it’s our eschatological hope that all the kings from all the racial-ethic “tribes” (or ethne) bringing their tribe in the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21) that also demonstrates our unity in Christ.

I believe MLK’s words are powerful and ones we forget at our peril, but as to whether he was quoted on his birthday, I wouldn’t make too much of that. We have far better evidences of ignoring racism in the United States!

2 Likes

I’ll start with a brief answer straight from the book. Two excerpts, the first of which I set out as a general rule:

Seek integration when possible. Address conflict when required. Allow for independence when necessary

Second, although we seek integration, we also need to interpret Scripture with a sufficient dose of independence between science and faith when necessary. Galileo may not have been entirely right with his quip, “I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.’” But he was on to something. In addition, when Psalms 8 and 19 lead us to consider the heavens and the glory of humankind, it doesn’t tell us how to use a telescope, or the take on the mathematics of physics, or give us comparative anatomy. These are all human endeavors complementary to the study of Scripture. If good science leads us to an earth that’s 4.5 billion years old and human beings who have evolved, then we need to follow it. As Harold Nebelsick commented so poignantly, “… to ignore the discussion of today’s science is simply to discuss theology in terms that are related to the science of the by-gone era.” And that means we believe, but lose our minds in the process.

At its core, independence recognizes and respects the difference between science and theology. The more I’ve interacted with scientists over the years, I’ve realized that science rightly can go its way and seeking to take a Christian approach to science can sound like a “Christian approach to dry cleaning.” Of course, because Jesus is Lord of all, we can’t stay with independence only–“separate but equal,” as it were–but we ought to let it have a place.

1 Like

@Cootsona, first thanks so much for your willingness to participate both here and at the ASA workshop (I was an attendee).

I would love to know a little bit more about “Creative Mutual Integration”. I am very interested in models for the interaction between science and theology.

I am also curious, as a science professor at a small Christian university, if you can give some “best practices” or at least some thoughts on how scientist/educators can most effectively translate the work of scholars to something emerging adults can work with and integrate into their own thinking.

2 Likes

I agree. That sounds really interesting.

All right, I’ll work on this one and plan to submit an answer tonight or early tomorrow morning. Essentially, it means that the science and theology conversation is truly a dialogue, a two-way street, and the model is drawn from Robert John Rusell’s work, especially Time in Eternity:

(Russell’s work on time in special relativity theory and in theology is truly cutting edge.)

Besides that, Jordan, I’m glad you were at the ASA workshop!

I have a chapter 8 as a PDF: Strategies for integration with emerging adults MereScience, final chapter](Dropbox - Final Chapter MereScienceAndChristianFaith_3814.pdf).

1 Like

@jordan, can you offer some thoughts and observations about what took place there for those that could not be there? I’m sure @AJRoberts would want to know.

I really like this as a principle. It seems to be another way of stating neutrality in science. Is that the right way to think about this, at least in part?

@fuglega, I’ve been thinking about this exchange, and want to juxtapose a few linked concepts regarding your position.

I emphasize there is no evidence against the de novo creation of Adam. In fact, it is 100% consistent with the common descent of man. At the same time, I also emphasize that the Church is defined by our confession of Jesus, not of a historical Adam, or de novo creation. That is a two part message, challenging to both sides of the debate.

Let’s examine TGC/Keller’s statement that the “essentials of creation” doctrine include the de novo creation of Adam (Keller on Adam and Eve). Is this a problem? It depends. They certainly can assert that it is personally essential for them. A problem might arise if they exclude you @fuglega as an equal member of the Church. That, according to the juxtaposed message I’m giving, is missing something important. This a real ecclesial risk, that I imagine you are concerned about. The right response to that valid concern, however, is not to falsely suggest that TGC/Keller are rejecting science:

That is just not true. They are not in conflict with science. However, depending on how they apply this essential, they might be in conflict with the intended ecclesiology of the Church.

At the core is this fact: affirming the de novo creation of Adam and Eve does not necessarily imply rejection of science. To say that is to make a scientific error. Even if we disagree with de novo Adam, it is not warranted to use science as a weapon like that. This is merely a call to honesty in science. You don’t to agree with a historical Adam or a de novo Adam to be honest about what science does and does not allow.

So the question for you, I wonder, is “Will you lay down arms?


On the theological side, I really interested to see the contrast between you words and @Cootsona’s. You say:

I understand how @fuglega is making that distinction, but reading from Paul rather than Genesis. Though there is a better way to make sense of this, the history that @Cootsona lays out…

That is the historical legacy that we all inherit. Even though it was 150 years ago, we are shaped by that declaration that the de novo Adam conflicts with science. One way theologians reworked Adam from the traditional view is to take your position, that Adam was not de novo created, but perhaps chosen. Correct me if I am wrong @Cootsona, but the primary (only?) reason this deviation from the traditional reading was put forward was because de novo creation was in conflict with science.

As we have demonstrated, however, that declaration was in error. Evolution and a de novo Adam are not in conflict. Despite what we have heard, these two things are not in any conflict. This calls into question the entire project of reworking the traditional reading in the first place.

Which is partially why, perhaps, you need to assert things like this.

That conflict is the background assumption and starting point of your position, it seems. However, that conflict is an illusion. This puts a new burden on your position, and creates a new opportunity. The burden: do you really have good reason to deviate from tradition? Perhaps not. The opportunity: perhaps you can find a more coherent position, which is no longer susceptible to the “arbitrariness” critique put forward by @Cootsona against you.

I’m not sure what the right answer is. Though this is a major correction. We have to reexamine many of the theological and hermeneutical tradeoffs that have been made over the last 150 years. Many things that had been taken away by science, are being given back. The calculation is different this time around, and traditional views on Adam might not have even been wrong in the first place.

In fact, those taking @Cootsona’s independence model might be vindicated. Some continued to affirm traditional views on Adam alongside evolution, even though they did not know how it fit together. They have new coherence to their position.

Once again, I’m not sure the answer, but we do have to be honest about science. The theological questions rising right now, also, are profound. Don’t miss the opportunity to be part of this.

I wish I had taken better notes, I am new to the whole genealogical Adam discussion so I took a bit to get up to speed. The room was packed with something like 75 attendees. Jeff Schloss did a good job of moderating and it was very nice to split it into a science panel and then a theology panel.

The science panel was very broad. I knew Steve Schaffner (@glipsnort) previously, but I learned a bit about @swamidass and @Agauger. I wish RTB could have been there, as Josh talked about work with @AJRoberts. Not being a biologist, I can only say I was impressed with the tone of discussion and the level of engagement. A great model for future work.

The theology panel was also very good. In particular, I thought John Hilber and @Cootsona were helpful in understanding some of the nuances. Most of us Christians in science are only amateur theologians at best.

I think these kinds of panels are incredibly useful. It wasn’t an echo chamber, it wasn’t just smile-and-nod niceties, it was honest discussion. I’m not yet certain if we need more Polkinhorne’s (one person with dual hats) or interdisciplinary panels like this ( talking with each other, not just at each other). Maybe the answer is both.

Lastly, I wrote my notes (and starred) something that @swamidass said:

It’s not enough to be right, you have to be trustworthy

That’s so important as we work these issues out. We can yell at each other all we want, but until we build trust we’re not going to make much of a difference.

1 Like

Another question here for @Cootsona . Why did you write this book? Who should read it?

This certainly is a deep shift in the ontology of sin. Without looking into the literature, I imagine that theologians holding a view in this ballpark have dealt with various philosophical objections that come to mind in terms of understanding consciousness. If sin is dependent on the emergence of consciousness plus actual human choices (is that a fair representation?), what is the threshold of consciousness that is required to “consciously follow God or not?”

I can follow your consistent narrative/hypothesis (and I realize there is more than likely much more nuance in the book) to infer a non-historical Adam/Eve, but I remain skeptical that the narrative/hypothesis actually saves the phenomena of people sinning in the world. Another way to think about it is that a non-historical Adam might do violence to understanding how sin operates in the world. I might call this the Practical Objection.

For instance, Rom 3:23 would need to be read something akin to “for all (who have reached a certain conscious maturity) have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” A whole lot of people may be incapable of sinning, which sounds really odd to my ears. Am I way off base here? I also realize that this is why you should never invite a philosopher to the party! :laughing:

This is something that I’ve always wondered about. What Josh seems to be driving at is how do we recognize a genuine conflict between science and religion? Or have we properly described the data to warrant a genuine conflict. The insanely messy fact/value calibration on both ends of scientific and theological theorizing seem to require us to constantly rethink whether our conflicts are genuine conflicts, and, I think related to the justice point, whose conflict.

@Cootsona why did you choose to follow science and rework genesis versus allowing genesis to rework (perhaps inform/influence is a better word) the science? In what ways has the ministry setting of “emerging adults” influenced your approach? Does the practical context of ministry even matter to the more theoretical work that you engage in?

1 Like