Here are some links that continue discussion of issues I linked to here, and the ethics of divorce I discussed here and here.

David Nilsen on Evolution and Sin

David Nilsen has responded to my objection to his view that sin can be traced to traits natural selection selected for because they contribute to our survival and reproduction. I had objected that some sins, like alcoholism, don’t contribute to our reproductive fitness.

I think David’s response is spot on; he asks us to consider the underlying motivations behind apparently unhelpful sins like pride and addiction. These reasons that the sins attract us, like biological mechanisms designed to motivate us to seek food or social power, are helpful to our reproductive success. So all our sins are done in captivity to desires aimed (albeit imperfectly) at reproductive success. This is helpful way for Christians friendly to evolution to describe (and perhaps, in some sense, to try to explain) our propensity to sin.

Pat Robertson Clarifies

After controversial remarks that seemed to sanction divorce of patient’s with Alzheimer’s, Robertson has backed off somewhat. It still isn’t clear what his views are, but he claims to be serious about the marriage vow of “in sickness and in health.”

Ed Feser on Original Sin and Adam’s Historicity

Ed Feser is a Roman Catholic philosopher and blogger. He weighed in on the controversy about whether there was a single first human couple with an outline and defense of Catholic teaching on the subject. See his first post, a response to critics, and his second post—the last of which especially is a helpfully clear description of Roman Catholic theology.

Warning: Feser’s discussion features a lot of Thomistic metaphysics and philosophy of mind—though gently introduced! Here’s a summary of his points, trying to cut through the metaphysical jargon.

Feser’s contention in his first post is that modern biology is consistent the RC claim that the human race started with a single pair. He does this by developing a description of what humans are (philosophical anthropology) under which we are different in ways that require the creation of immaterial souls. Feser argues that, though apparently there were about 10,000 human-like creatures (genetically identical to genuine humans, presumably) from which we are descended, this is quite compatible with believing that God only infused souls into two of these 10,000. Feser’s response to critics features a nice block quote towards the beginning which summarizes this admirably.

Although it starts with a nice discussion of a Roman Catholic view of faith and reason, the main argument of Feser’s second main post is that the RC doctrine of original sin is compatible with modern biology. This is because the doctrine doesn’t suppose the original sin is some kind of “sin gene” passed on biologically. Instead, it is the loss of access to supernatural grace—the beatific vision. To quote Feser: “the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed.”

So Feser thinks that what Adam’s descendents get because of original sin (apart from salvation through Christ) is not condemnation for Adam’s sin, or a biological influence that makes sin more likely, but simply missing out on the beatific vision. Those who die as adults also get hell, of course, but because of their own sin, not original sin. As a Reformed person myself, I can’t get behind everything in the picture Feser defends, but it’s interesting to see how another Christian tradition has responded to these issues. And non-RC Christians can probably make use of the idea that original sin involves the loss of supernatural help and blessing rather than a biological change to explain why we don’t find a “sin gene” popping up 10,000 years ago.

Grace and peace.

Tags: Adam, sin, Pat Robertson, divorce