Bob Howard writes (original post) a comment which hits upon one of the most significant issues — and one which is rarely discussed:
The problem for the Church is that science is slowly undermining belief even if not intending to. Original sin is a very important proposition to Catholics. Evolution displacing a God who created the first human couple leaves little room for original sin. The convoluted articles by Catholic writers to be found on the internet show how difficult it has become for the Catholic Church.
If the human race descended from previous near human forms where would a single couple, Adam and Eve, fit in? Did a few thousand people all commit the same sin? As far as I can tell (the articles are difficult to fathom) all of us descended from a couple who were originally part of a group. They received souls as did all their decendents. Presumably the unsouled all died out.
An admission that there is no such thing as original sin leaves the Church with it's heroes Jesus and Mary as not being immaculate after all.
Quite frankly it is much easier being an atheist only having to follow real evidence and logical thinking without having to take beliefs or wishful thinking into account.
All of the debates about whether the Bible should be read as referring to literal days, figurative days, or as simply being irrelevant are masking the real problems which evolution and the great age of the earth pose for Christians. If evolution is true, then a literal Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden is not true — something which is obviously a problem for anyone who reads the Bible literally. Christians have, for a long time, accepted such metaphorical readings — thus it’s not an insurmountable problem.
If there was only a metaphorical Fall, though, why do we need a literal salvation? Perhaps a metaphorical salvation is sufficient? Some Christians may be able to take this step, but even those who read Genesis metaphorically will have trouble reading the Gospels as metaphors. This is, perhaps, not an entirely insurmountable problem, but it would be very close to one for many Christians. It seems that Christians need to see the Fall as not being entirely metaphorical in order for the atonement to be retained as literal.
Regardless of what sort of tales the Bible may contain, the fact is there was no literal Adam and Eve, there was no Garden of Eden, and there was no "Fall from Grace." The idea of "original sin" has no naturalistic basis and no relevance whatsoever to the development of our species. As there was no literal Fall from Grace, there is no need for a literal Salvation or Atonement — certainly no need for any literal sacrifice from a literal son of a literal god.
The entire body of Christian mythology is based on a foundation of falsehood; once the notion of original sin is removed it all comes crumbling down. There is no original sin to repent for, no sinful nature to feel guilty about, and no reason to seek out a savior to make sacrifices on our behalf.
Bingo — that’s exactly the basic problem evolutionary theory poses for Christianity. Without the “disease” that it’s supposed to cure, what’s the need for the cure?
Sophisticated commentaries on Genesis, both Jewish and Christian, take the view that Adam and Eve are representative symbols for all of Homo sapiens; the whole species didn’t actually descend from two individuals. But as modern primates are studied more and more closely, it’s becoming apparent that all of the traits we humans have, good and bad, existed in a less complex, or less “developed,” if you will, form in the species we evolved from. So evolution explains where human nature came from — no religious mythology needed.
And I love the concept of “metaphorical salvation”! I think Tillich probably arrived at that idea, but I’m not familiar enough with his natterings to know.
Bob’s comments are dead on. In the New Testament the concept of the atonement is clearly justified by the concept of original sin (Romans 5:11-5:19), the resurrection of the dead is justified by Adam’s punishment (1 Corinthians 15:20-22 ), and there is the troublesome fact that Jesus’ divinely inspired geneology traces his lineage directly back to Adam (Luke 3).
But the loss of Adam isn’t the only problem faced by the Church; the loss of Eve is nearly as devastating. The Catholic Church has used the story of Eve’s creation and her tempting of Adam to justify centuries of mistreatment of women. Since Eve was made from Adam’s flesh, all women are subordinate to men. Since Eve fell from grace before Adam, all women are impure. Since God punished Eve by making her painfully birth Adam’s children, women shouldn’t control their reproductive systems.
Of course these ideas weren’t original to Christianity, but all three of these ideas were adopted very early in the Church’s history as demonstrated by this verse from Paul.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
-1 Timothy 2:11-15
It is true that the Church has relaxed a tiny bit on some women’s issues (you no longer hear much opposition to the use of anesthetics during childbirth for example), but the many of the central political positions held by today’s Catholic Church can only be justified by viewing women as the heirs of Eve’s sins. This story is even the justification for excluding women from the priesthood, a policy which, if ended, would likely result in a very different kind of organization.
Oops. The citation from Corinthians should read: 1 Corinthians 15:20-49.
On another website, someone wrote that even if there was no Fall, Christianity could still be true because Christ may have been sent to die for all of our own sins. Is this true? Does Christianity teach that he died for original sin or does it teach that he died for everyone’s own sins?
The latter – but “original sin” is part of everyone’s sins and the reason why no one is without sin. Original sin is integral to Christian theology and if anyone claims that Christianitiy could survive without the doctrine of the Fall and original sin, it would be a “Christianity” unlike the religion that has existed for two millennia. It would be more gutted than anything atheists’ criticisms could do to it.
Hi, here is a response from a member of theologyweb to the issue of evolution and the atonement:
“I’m not an inerrantist, but I don’t see any conflict between evolution and the doctrine of Atonement. Christ could still be the Atonement for each individual even if Adam and Eve are just myth or metaphor for the fallen nature of each person.
I think the Apostle Paul did believe in a literal Adam and Eve. However, I think significant features of the doctrine of Atonement he helped elucidate are valid outside that context.”
Well, I agree that it’s possible for humans to be sinful even if there were no Adam and Eve. But I think that atonement doesn’t make sense if evolution occurred. According to Christianity, death is the penalty for sin. But evolution entails that death is natural. If death is a natural event, it makes no sense that it could be the penalty for sin, and Christianity teaches that Christ died in our place. And how did we inherit a sin nature if we are not descended from Adam and Eve. The whole thing seems to make less and less sense the more I think about it.
This is the crux of the problem. Even without The Fall, there is still morality and moral accountability. One could even assume, for the sake of argument, that there is sin. Without The Fall, however, there is no “original sin” in a literal sense. Without a literal original sin, the doctrine of atonement is seriously undermined. I won’t say that there is no way that it could be propped up, but it wouldn’t fit with traditional, orthodox Christian theology anymore.
Does the doctrine of original sin mean that people are held accountable for Adam’s sin, or does it just mean that it’s a sin that caused all people to inherit a sinful nature?
Both, depending on one’s theological views. We are all born with a sinful nature and we are all born sinners. This is why babies are essentially born sinners and are at risk of going to hell if not baptized.
Either way, if The Fall was metaphorical then what can original sin be? How can we literally inherit a sinful nature from a metaphor? How can we literally inherit accountability for someone else’s sins through a metaphor?
However original sin is conceived of, there are ways to fit it in with the biblical story but it’s a lot harder to fit any conception of original sin in with natural evolution. Sin is a supernatural concept; evolution is an entirely natural, material process. Sin is something that is associated with a supernatural soul; evolution is a physical process that operates on physical bodies. Where’s the connection? How does the physical, natural, material process of changes in allele frequency over time lead in any way to “sin” of any sort?
This is why evolution is actually easier to accept in the context of Jewish and Islamic theology. They reject original sin and thus have much less of a problem if the Garden of Eden story is just a story.