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

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Had a moment to add some thoughts…

Historical Adam

@Cootsona

As I argue in the book, Christian orthodoxy, and particularly salvation through the God-man Jesus Christ and belief in his bodily resurrection, doesn’t depend on an historical Adam and Eve.

I could not agree more.

For all the work we are doing on historical Adam, it is critical to remember the Church is defined by a confession that we believe Jesus rose from the dead, not that Adam is historical.

@Cootsona

Though I am a proponent of a typological and non-historical Adam (I like “type,” by the way because it is the word Paul uses in Romans 5:14), I’d be happier if an historical Adam made the best sense of the biblical, theological, and scientific inputs. An historical Adam is not, however, (and others) the inference to the best explanation (to use Peter Lipton’s term) or most fitting (Thomas Aquinas). So, Josh, keep working at this, and I’ll maybe I’ll be convinced!

It is not our goal to convince no-Adam Christians to change. Though I commend you on your open-mindedness. Can you help us understand you some more here?

1. You say you’d be “happier” if Adam made best sense of the scientific and theological and biblical inputs. Why would that make you happier?

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

Once again, the goal is not to start a debate here on this, but to understand how you are thinking about this. I also thank you again for your support to us here.

@Cootsona

The theological panel ran out of time, and there are significant biblical and theological concerns that we need to take up. (Thankfully, I have more training here.)

We put forward The Three Stories on Adam at the workshop:

1. Story One: Ancient Sole-Genetic Progenitor Adam
2. Story Two: Genetic-Interbreeding Adam
3. Story Three: Recent Sole-Genealogical Progenitor Adam (The Genealogical Adam)

Which of these three models do you think is going to be most important in the long run? What do you think are the most important concerns to address for that model. You do have much more training than I, so I am listening closely.

Race, Faith, and Science

I want to call out two key points you’ve made…

@Cootsona

My primary hope is that we’d have many more people around the table to discuss faith and science.

That is the key. It will only happen if we begin to think beyond our personal questions, and get beyond our own starting points. You model immediately how we can start making headway: questions…

@Cootsona

First of all, what are the topics that Asian Americans think are important?

Secondly, how do African Americans relate to the scientific establishment in light of the horrible history of the racist use of science as in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments?

We also need to also address the things we already know are important too:

@Cootsona

we need to take on the science of race and its legitimacy.

I’d also emphasize we need to start working out how Original Sin and the Fall interact with concepts like injustice and racism. A quote from my recent ASA peice (thank you @sygarte) is:

In our current moment, liberal theology is uncomfortable with the corporate guilt of “original sin,” but often echoes secular discourse on social justice and systemic injustice. Similarly, conservative theology affirms the doctrine of “original sin,” but resists naming anything but individual actions as sinful.** Coming to a common language, perhaps working out the corporate nature of original sin might give us a better account of the segregated world. Instead of echoing or opposing secular rhetoric, we might recover a theological voice on injustice.
Essay: "Grieve the Segregation of Science" by S. Joshua Swamidass

@Cootsona

There’s so much to say here, and I have much to learn, both in terms of scholarship and in experience since I’m a white, middle aged, male.

There is much more to say. I don’t want to give this short shrift. We’ve talked about this at length a few times. Could you tell us more how your thoughts are developing? What you been coming to understand?

On question comes up too. You ran the Scientists in Congregations program. How did you deal with the disparity in African American Churches there?

One study found that none of the science PhD’s in one year were awarded to blacks in a large number of scientific fields[1]. Among the general populace, there is also a gap in scientific knowledge [2], but the deficit in black science PhDs means that most black churches, for example those in Saint Louis, have never benefited from a scientist in their congregation.
Essay: "Grieve the Segregation of Science" by S. Joshua Swamidass