Jeremy Christian's Take on Free Will

Conversation Side Conversation
186

Am I understanding you’re saying Adam is the “worst example that could be found”? Not sure I agree with that.

Group A - non-violent, egalitarian, living in harmony with nature, not yet building all they can imagine.

Group B - Violent, class-stratified, building and inventive as observed in Gen11.

There’s a very distinct line in history that divides these two lines. This IS our human history. It began in Sumer and spread from there, which is right where/when Genesis says it happened.

The entirety of human history from antiquity forward depicts “civilized” human cultures (violent/technologically superior) conquering and pushing indigenous cultures (non-violent/technologically primitive) to the brink of extinction. Group B, the “civilized” humans (an ironic label) show all the signs of post-fall humans. Group A showing all the signs of pre-fall humans.

Seems pretty clear to me. Certainly actionable information to guide genetic investigation. So, why don’t we get started?

187

“it certainly invalidates the whole Genealogical Adam proposal”

Can you explain this?

“I find it more than a little perplexing that he thinks we
here are the people to side with him.”

This group recognizes that there were humans before Adam. This is a big hurdle to already be past. So we’re halfway there. Not sure how the potential of anyone siding with this view beyond that first hurdle you find perplexing.

“It not only doesn’t fit with conventional YEC views…”

Natural history doesn’t fit with conventional YEC views. How is this a qualifier? Obviously you’re looking to correct some views they have demonstrably wrong. Why stop there? Why attempt to conform your conclusion to that goal? THAT I find perplexing.

188

Wonder no more

189

Cain’s paranoia is quiet testimony of the psychological truth that the “sins” we allow ourselves to indulge in, even if successfully “covered up,” among other humans, and known only to God, we are still too willing to ascribe those as motives to others. It’s part of our drive to self-justify our own misbehaviors. We end up living in a prison of our making, not seeing people for who they really are.
“Created in the image of God,” first and foremost, and endowed with a corruptible but nevertheless present, moral compass, which has been “written on our hearts.”
C.S. Lewis has a quote that starts with, “you’ve never met a merely mortal human being…” which is worth looking up.
My two cents.

190

I think you’re reading way too much into this.

“But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.”

Why would God respond this way if Cain is just being paranoid?

191

To be clear, this is consistent with my view. Any human without free will is not in danger of falling out of sync with God so all will have eternal life.

Salvation is only necessary when there is a free will.

192

I guess George is out of pocket. Can anyone explain what he means by this? Agree/disagree? Anyone? Clarification please?

193

@Jeremy_Christian

In response to my writing: “it certainly invalidates the whole Genealogical Adam proposal”, you ask me to explain this. The problem comes from the fact that we are getting push-back from certain sectors that we are proposing a sub-class of humanity, which most YECs would reject. It’s hard enough for them to imagine a separate population of humans (even Imago Dei humans) before the arrival of Adam & Eve.

The idea that Imago Dei humans also don’t have Free Will is pretty much “beyond the pale”. The average YEC equates the “Imago Dei” status of humanity to be the very best part of humanity. And your use of Cain’s situation as some kind of proof that the “Imago Dei” is not only a “bitter pill to swallow”, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on in terms of human philosophy, Christian theology or even secular psychology.

You write: “‘Natural history doesn’t fit with conventional YEC views’? How is this a qualifier?”

As I have suggested to you before, you don’t seem to understand the mission of @Swamidass’ “Geneal.Adam” project. We are not attempting to challenge the YEC mindset on a whole catalog of Biblical speculation. We are only attempting to find enough commonality in views to make it possible for a pool of pro-Science YECs to accept the evolution of humanity while simultaneously accommodating the Special Creation of just 2 humans: Adam and Eve.

The Special Creation of Adam and Eve is the central pivot around which all the rest of the analysis is developed. Your fixation on Free Will is peripheral to this. And when you actually use your approach to dramatically downgrade the nature of the evolved human population Adam and Eve, it creates additional barriers to acceptance of the scenario.

Naturally, we expect that many “camps” will stake out particular niches that suit any given denomination, or a sub-group of a given denomination. No doubt, you would want to do just that - - where you challenge the other “Pro” Geneal.Adam supporters to compare THEIR “camp” to YOUR “camp”. And that is as it should be. But your position can only be a “wing”, a “flavor” of the central thesis, namely: Adam and Eve are identical in nature to the humans that they join, with just one difference - - that Adam & Eve bring original sin AND moral agency to all of humanity (because this is what Paul says they do in Romans 5)!

While it is true to some Christians that removing Free Will from humans would strip them of their moral agency, Calvinists and many Lutherans are not likely to agree with that viewpoint. Plus, there are less controversial ways for the evolved population of Imago Dei Humans to require moral agency (the usual approach is not that they lack free will but because they lack knowledge of God’s spiritual guidelines).

So… carry on with your particular crusade. And even join the “Geneal.Adam” effort. But if you do so, it needs to be with the understanding that you represent a “specialty view”. Your view may, in fact, be exactly true (as a Unitarian Universalist I wouldn’t bet a dollar on that). But the fact you have difficulty finding people who agree with you is at the heart of why Free Will is not at core logic of the Genealogical Adam program. Original Sin, or more correctly, Paul’s Roman 5, is the crystal core of our work, which most YEC’s interpret and understand as a question of Original Sin, rather than a question of Free Will.

194

I’m still digesting this, but choked on this bit. Not trying to be a “smarty pants” again, but isn’t that an oxymoron? That doesn’t compute. How can they be pro-science and YEC simultaneously? What am I missing?

A pool of pro-science YECs? How large is this pool? More than 5 people? Okay, that might have been a little smarty pants, admittedly, but my question is sincere.

195

Question #2… If not free will, what’s “special” about their creation? There’s a planet full of humans, now here’s a couple more?

Really trying not to step over the smarty pants line, but it’s difficult.

196

@Jeremy_Christian:

You write: “I guess George is out of pocket. Can anyone explain what
he means by this?”

And you have frequently challenged the idea that we should care what
the typical YEC thinks or believes.

This reminds me of the story of Jack Benny. He wanted to learn the
piano. But his parents wanted him to learn something truly classical,
so they compelled him to take up the violin. Unfortunately for
everyone, unfortunately for the World, Jack Benny was born a little
tone deaf. Just as dogs can hear more tones than humans, most humans
can hear more tones than Jack Benny could. And the violin is famous
for not having any frets. So letting Jack play was equivalent to
having a brilliant violinist play with the leather gloves of an iron
worker… a tone deaf iron worker. He would execute the fingering
quickly, as he was taught, but he never really knew when his sound was
just right. He mostly thought it was always just right. In the
meantime, the dogs howled and humans said they had some errands to
run.

So here it is:
ONE: In the “hierarchy” of motivations in Geneal.Adam, most
everything is focused on how the faction of YECs who are still
inclined towards the rigors, truths and beauty of Science can indulge
his inclination if it means it invalidates his faith?

TWO: How does Science invalidate his faith? Traditionally speaking,
it did so by insisting that Adam and Eve were figures of speech.

THREE: But if Adam and Eve were figurative, then how can Paul’s
divinely inspired Romans 5 have validity? All of Western Christianity
says Augustine correctly discerned the importance of Romans 5 by
concluding that it contains the heart of Original Sin, and the very
crux of why Christian souls have to find atonement.

FOUR: So we explain that science is no more equipped to deny the
miraculous creation of just two people than it is equipped to deny the
miracle of Jesus’ birth or the miracle of his resurrection. Millions
of Christians find fulfillment in science careers without the Birth or
Death of Jesus affecting their work one iota. But because of the
polarization of culture, Evolutionists have said: Adam and Eve aren’t
historical; all humans had to come straight out of the evolved hominid
branch of Primate life.

FIVE: And so, take away Adam and Eve as historical figures, you
invalidate Paul. And you invalidate Romans 5. And thus you
invalidate the crux of Christianity for most of Western Christianity
(not so much for the Eastern sphere of Christianity, which has always
been less than impressed with the logic of Augustine).

Genealogical Adam focuses on removing the polarization. The special
creation of just 2 humans leaves too small a genetic footprint for
Science to conclusively say they could not exist… just as the
miraculous birth of one Jewish boy, and the miraculous resurrection of
one Jewish man, is not a big enough secular event for Science to
conclusively say such a miracle couldn’t happen. Setting aside the
atheists, there are very few Christians (even Christian science
professionals) who are so bold as to say there are no such things as
miracles.

I’m not going to type all of this over again using different words.
So please don’t respond by saying “you don’t get it” … or that you
are still confused. I’ve laid this out, point-by-point, so that
virtually any fluent English reader should “get it”. And if you or
others don’t - - then clearly you are in no position to participate in
the work.

197

Okay, obviously I have no pull here with @swamidass, so the “smarty pants” threat can’t swing both ways, but come on. This is the first time you or anyone has explained it like this, so don’t act like I’m being difficult. These questions are legitimate and sincere.

Okay, I’ve seen it discussed in this very forum, the question about what makes Adam significant. This is a valid question in this scenario. It’s the next logical question when you’re finally ready to present this to your YEC target audience. So, what’s your answer? Purposely vague to allow them the freedom to come up with the answer themselves?

198

In response to my reference to “a pool of pro-Science YECs”,
@Jeremy_Christian writes:

“I’m still digesting this, but choked on this bit. Not trying to be a
“smarty pants” again, but isn’t that an oxymoron? That doesn’t
compute. How can they be pro-science and YEC simultaneously? What am I
missing? A pool of pro-science YECs? How large is this pool? More
than 5 people? Okay, that might have been a little smarty pants,
admittedly, but my question is sincere.”

Jeremy, you may have noticed that we have a higher than average number
of “Old Earth Creationists”. This camp is a common destination for
Creationists who end up rejecting “Young Earth-ism” because they just
can’t dismiss the geology and physics that demonstrates the earth is
much older than 10,000 years.

Even then, there are those who would be old Earthers … if they
didn’t think it made no sense to accept physics that says Earth is
old, while rejecting the same Science that says Evolution is true.
For those individuals, it is the whole enchilada or science is
fundamentally corrupt.

There are other Christians are only tenuously YECs… who would bolt
from it as soon as someone tells them how to handle Romans 5.

And there are yet millions more scientists who suffer the perception
of conflict between their Christian faith and the ample of evidence of
modern secular science.

All these people are the audience Genealogical Adam would help.

Now, conversely, imagine the same effort being used to promote what
you are certain is truth. Free Will. Free Will. Free Will. The
problem is that the question of Free Will is not what is tearing at
the minds of the those Christians who feel faith-bound to accept
Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 5… despite what their logical
minds say is true about Science.

199

ONE: It doesn’t

TWO: Adam and Eve are actual historical figures in the “free will” context

THREE: See TWO

FOUR: How about if we were able to shut the evolutionists up with hard evidence? Wouldn’t that achieve the same goal? Because that’s what I’m offering.

FIVE: Again, not taking A/E away

“Genealogical Adam focuses on removing the polarization.”

Yeah, me too. That’s why I’m here. But doing so rarely works when there’s so much compromise. Do you not see this as a boil just waiting to burst and wreck the whole project eventually? Do you not see the incoming ice burg?

200

@jeremy_Christian writes:

Question #2… If not free will, what’s “special” about their creation?
There’s a planet full of humans, now here’s a couple more? Really
trying not to step over the smarty pants line, but it’s difficult.

Yes, Jeremy. It is difficult. And you failed. Take it up with the
YECs. There is a mystical piece of junk in their heads called
Original Sin, and they won’t let go of it. Ironically, Augustine
formulated Original Sin, in part, based on the premise of Free Will.
Free Will meant that all the awful things of this world are the fault
of humanity, not the fault of God.

I didn’t invent this idea, I’m just a reporter. Take it up with them.
Go on a crusade to eliminate Original Sin as a fundamental principle
of much of Western religious society. And good luck to you.
BioLogos.Org never found a way around it. All the organization seems
to know how to do is: yes, Original Sin, but Adam and Eve are
figurative. The problem is, for the most part, “that dog just won’t
hunt”! They will not let go of a real Adam and Eve.

And @swamidass discovered that they don’t have to give up Adam and
Eve. Now take your “wild smarty pants ways” and settle down. The
facts are the facts. I didn’t make them. I don’t like them. But
that’s all we have to work with around here, right?

Decide what is most feasible for you to fight for . . . but please
stop trying to re-invent Genealogical Adam. It has been invented.
You can be the wing of the project that says “Evolved Humans didn’t
have Free Will until Adam and Eve”. There are certainly ideas way
more extravagant and crazy-minded than the one you formulated. But it
can’t be at the center of the project. It has to be “Optional Luxury
Equipment” for the audience.

But when push gives in to pull, every time you tell someone that
Genealogical Adam won’t work if the Imago Dei Human population is
allowed to have Free Will, you have just put “a beam in the eye of our
audience” and you have left another obstacle in our way. Stop doing
that.

201

Maybe this comes from my having dealt with this for nearly 10 years now, but what seems to be missing here is the foresight that once you reach your first goal this then becomes very relevant and is poised to crash the whole thing if you don’t work it out.

Do you not anticipate what comes next? You really should.

202

Well, apparently we’re misunderstanding each other because it seems you do not yet realize what I’m trying to get across addresses Romans 5 and Augustine and Original Sin all at once. I’m giving you an answer for when the first hurdle is traversed that remains consistent across all of those points of interest. Right now, it would seem, this model in its current state falls well short of that.

Simply getting them over the humans before Adam hump doesn’t do it. You have to be able to answer what’s significant about Adam. Yes, original sin is intimately tied to free will. But it’s not “original”, or it doesn’t originate, with Adam if there are other humans with free will before him. How could it?

How can humans exist before Adam with free will, yet sin only start with Adam. Again the question arises, what’s significant about Adam.

“Ironically, Augustine
formulated Original Sin, in part, based on the premise of Free Will.
Free Will meant that all the awful things of this world are the fault
of humanity, not the fault of God.”

And he’s exactly right. What I’m saying falls right in line with this. Better than what you all are saying, actually.

203

@Jeremy_Christian writes

“Okay, obviously I have no pull here with @swamidass, so the “smarty
pants” threat can’t swing both ways, but come on. This is the first
time you or anyone has explained it like this, so don’t act like I’m
being difficult. These questions are legitimate and sincere. Okay,
I’ve seen it discussed in this very forum, the question about what
makes Adam significant. This is a valid question in this scenario.
It’s the next logical question when you’re finally ready to present
this to your YEC target audience. So, what’s your answer? Purposely
vague to allow them the freedom to come up with the answer
themselves?”

Joshua and I differ on some points and in some habits. He is in the
habit of thinking his audience understands the implications of what
he’s saying as soon as he says it. And so sometimes he will tell me
that someone is “on board” and they understand it fully… only for me
to discover a week later that this fellow or that woman still doesn’t
understand the heart of the Joshua’s logic . . . THE logic.

I prefer to focus on the heart of the logic first. But sometimes I
don’t repeat everything over and over (though @Guy_Coe or others might
be inclined to think I repeat myself perfectly too often).

When I pry myself out of some of my work responsibilities, I plan on
creating a 10 question “qualifying exam” that walks EVERYBODY through
the logic. Part of this project is waiting for Joshua to finish the
fine points of the logic. But mostly it’s a time issue. But having
a qualifying exam of 10 (or 20) questions will make it possible for
each and every person who enters the group to hear the official
premises… to read the official logical points … and when they
can’t answer enough questions correctly, they get a nice digital rose
and more links to additional white papers and resources.

Jeremy, usually people arrive here wondering what they are going to
learn. And you arrived here to teach. And so this probably
predisposed you to think some of our ideas made for a perfect fit - -
like the topic of Pre-Adamites … or (yes Guy!) … better yet, Imago
Dei Humanity! Yes. It’s an amazing thing to stumble into. But it’s
also amazing for what it is trying to do with people who already
accept Free Will as an operating principle. Your special twist, as
cunning as it is (and perhaps as perfectly true as it may be) is not
suited to be at the pointy end of the spear.

It is perfect as a follow-on idea… with people who are already
swinging the Genealogical Adam bat. But I think your annual reunions
are still going to be big enough to fit into a Yugo.

204

Yeah, you’re still too busy dismissing me to get what I’m saying. There’s no need to eliminate original sin. In fact, I’m not sure how GA addresses that issue at all without this component.

205

Not true at all. I came here because there are highly intelligent and educated people, knowledgeable in all the areas necessary to be able to comprehend this hypothesis, who are capable of peer-reviewing what I’m laying out.

It’s a very niche audience that can follow what we’re talking about here. Most drop off at the people before Adam point. You all are beyond that here, it seems.

This group seems positioned to make a real and meaningful impact where this is concerned. The focus on tailoring your results to the sensibilities of YEC creationists so specifically is, I fear, a fallacy that could wreck the whole thing.

Now, imagine if we could actually bring hard evidence to the scientists who have the YEC crowd so worked up? Wouldn’t that accomplish the same thing? And actually get everyone, not just this niche group, on the same page?