BookTalk.org

Ch. 2: Who was the first person?

Please use this thread to discuss the above chapter.

We discussed Dawkins' thought experiment on evolution here:
http://www.booktalk.org/richard-dawkins ... experiment

To repeat my earlier question slightly differently, how is it that theists try to reconcile evolution with their beliefs of some kind of unique human soul, a special role for humans, some kind of afterlife, etc.?

Once it became impossible to continue denying evolution for many (but not all) theists, the common answer seems to be that God set evolution into motion. But even if we accept this "answer," where does the "soul" come in? As Dawkins points out, evolution shows how every generation is the same species as their parents, but if you go back about 185 million generations, you've got a fish. (Whether it is exactly 185 million and looks as pictured is clearly besides the point if you accept evolution, despite the hurling of insults and accusations in the above thread.)

So either God picked an arbitrary point in which humans became unique and where religion applies to them, or every organism along the line has a soul just as humans do. Is there any consensus among theists? Which is it? Has this ever been discussed?

First!

This brave Adonis was the first.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1b65bd ... ton-oswalt

Dexter wrote: So either God picked an arbitrary point in which humans became unique and where religion applies to them, or every organism along the line has a soul just as humans do. Is there any consensus among theists? Which is it? Has this ever been discussed?

Good luck with that! I wonder, too, if there has been a theological attempt to consolidate belief in a soul with respect to our knowledge of evolutionary theory. As you suggest, just when God endowed us with a soul does present a very thorny problem, especially when you consider this angle suggested by Dawkins that there was no first human. But there are already many problems that plague biblical-based beliefs, but not a lot of motivation to try to explain these contradictions when they do come up.

Belief in a soul actually well predates Christianity. So what Christians believe today was a syncretism of those earlier beliefs.

The question for Ch. 2 is: Who Was The First Person?

Dawkins begins this discussion with a couple of creation myths, including the Old Testament version with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The whole idea of original sin is tied with the idea that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Dawkins points out that some people believe in the concept of original sin even if they don't believe that Adam really existed.

After summarizing the Norse creation myth featuring Odin, Dawkins wonders how myths get passed down from generation to generation. Presumably, Dawkins says, the original inventors of these myths knew they were fiction. So how is it that some people still believe in the old myths as literal truth? (He doesn't phrase it quite like this). He suggests that over time people embellish stories that have been passed down without realizing that various bits were originally made up.

"Stories are fun, and we all love repeating them. But when we hear a colorful story, whether it is an ancient myth or a modern 'urban legend' whizzing around the internet, it is also worth stopping to ask whether it—or any of it—is true."

We discussed Dawkins' mind experiment on another thread, but I have to say again, what a stunning way of looking at evolution and the diversity of life forms. That there was no actual first person really underscores the rather stark disconnect between reality and much of our biblical heritage. As Dexter pointed out, the concept of a soul is somewhat difficult to imagine without the idea that a first man and woman were created at some point. Or at least it's difficult to pretend that humans are special in the cosmos as the pinnacle of God's creation. We are special, of course, but so are all life forms on earth. We are all intimately connected. We are close cousins to sea urchins and bats and kangaroos. "All are our cousins. Every last one of them. Isn't that a far more wonderful thought than any myth?"

Using the question—who was the first person?—Dawkins leads us through a mind experiment in which we pretend to travel back in time and pick up one of our ancestors about every 10,000 years. After a while we come to an ancestor who can no longer breed with one of the original passengers on the time machine, even though they may still look very much alike. But the further back in time we go, the more different our ancestors begin to look. Even so, there never was a time when a parent gave birth to something that was a different species. It happens too gradually.

This is quite a an excellent book. I wish I had it when I was younger. I do especially appreciate the explanations for the different kinds of fossils and different dating methods. I thought the first chapter was an excellent philosophical primer into the theory of knowledge. This chapter is a stunning primer into understanding the basic idea of gradual change, which helps us to envision how evolution actually works.

Dexter wrote:We discussed Dawkins' thought experiment on evolution here:
http://www.booktalk.org/richard-dawkins ... experiment

To repeat my earlier question slightly differently, how is it that theists try to reconcile evolution with their beliefs of some kind of unique human soul, a special role for humans, some kind of afterlife, etc.?

Once it became impossible to continue denying evolution for many (but not all) theists, the common answer seems to be that God set evolution into motion. But even if we accept this "answer," where does the "soul" come in? As Dawkins points out, evolution shows how every generation is the same species as their parents, but if you go back about 185 million generations, you've got a fish. (Whether it is exactly 185 million and looks as pictured is clearly besides the point if you accept evolution, despite the hurling of insults and accusations in the above thread.)

So either God picked an arbitrary point in which humans became unique and where religion applies to them, or every organism along the line has a soul just as humans do. Is there any consensus among theists? Which is it? Has this ever been discussed?

It might not be too big a stretch to say that animals and even things had "souls" in the religion that was probably earliest in our history: the animistic beliefs of small groups of hunter-gatherers. The characteristic might be closer to "spirit" than "soul," but it can be hard to make strict distinctions between these. Perhaps what has happened in the development of religion is that this non-corporeal substance that is spirit or soul becomes more restricted as time goes on, until now it is only the property of humans in most major religions. Because all this belief started when our science was completely unknown, it's no surprise that there's no place for it in scientific view of the world. Modern people know that science has come to dominate human societies, and what I think might have happened is that many of them have pushed back against it because they need humans to be unique in kind compared to the rest of living things.

DWill wrote:Modern people know that science has come to dominate human societies, and what I think might have happened is that many of them have pushed back against it because they need humans to be unique in kind compared to the rest of living things.

I agree.

You sometimes hear theists, particularly Christians (now including the official position of the Catholic Church isn't it?), say that you can believe in evolution without contradiction, but I don't think they realize the problems with that view if you want to maintain any actual religious content.

Dexter wrote:

DWill wrote:Modern people know that science has come to dominate human societies, and what I think might have happened is that many of them have pushed back against it because they need humans to be unique in kind compared to the rest of living things.

I agree.

You sometimes hear theists, particularly Christians (now including the official position of the Catholic Church isn't it?), say that you can believe in evolution without contradiction, but I don't think they realize the problems with that view if you want to maintain any actual religious content.

We have to be satisfied with an inconsistent view from those religionists, because at least it means that the Church and the moderate Protestants won't be fighting to have ID taught in schools. For consistency, look to the fundamentalists, who do understand that you really can't have it both ways. Implicit in evolution is a fact disturbing to all theistic religions, that we didn't have to be here, and that we are here according to no plan, but as a result of how the dice came up. What the problem is with accepting that I don't grasp. If I win a huge lottery prize at a billion to one odds, I'm gonna be very, very amazed and happy at my luck.

DWill wrote: We have to be satisfied with an inconsistent view from those religionists, because at least it means that the Church and the moderate Protestants won't be fighting to have ID taught in schools. For consistency, look to the fundamentalists, who do understand that you really can't have it both ways.

True, it is better than the alternative for the moderates. There is still a disturbingly large percentage especially in the U.S. that continues to deny evolution.

Dexter wrote:

DWill wrote: We have to be satisfied with an inconsistent view from those religionists, because at least it means that the Church and the moderate Protestants won't be fighting to have ID taught in schools. For consistency, look to the fundamentalists, who do understand that you really can't have it both ways.

True, it is better than the alternative for the moderates. There is still a disturbingly large percentage especially in the U.S. that continues to deny evolution.

This sounds right. Ideas of spirit or soul, terms that were originally probably used metaphorically, were then later sanctioned as literal concepts and used for religious dogma. We who are materialists kind of look with fascination to those who still believe in original sin or a literal soul. Science didn't replace religion, but split society into a major schism between sacred truth and reason. There's no real debate between the two sides as we have seen on these forums. That's why there's no logical response to when did God put a soul into humans when, in fact, there was no first human.