Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If science cannot disprove religious claims, it can throw great doubt on them.  And, as a religious claim, science can do no more than throw great doubt on the story of Adam and Eve.  Is not Adam and Eve a religious claim?  Genesis is no less a religious claim than the resurrection is.  But, because some claim it to be a literal event, science makes an exception for the religious claim of Genesis, trying to disprove it.

The origin of humans on earth is not a religious claim, it is a scientific claim. We have human fossils, ancient buildings, writings, paintings cave dwellings. We have carbon dating and other radiometric dating. We have our DNA, and even the DNA of some close cousins to our species. All these things point to a very ancient beggining to our species. Part of the literal fall is the fall from a perfect world with no death to the fallen world of death that we see today. Science absolutely speaks to these things.

 

What I have been saying is that science has no more ability to disprove Genesis than it can disprove the resurrection.  You site biological evidence etc. against Genesis, well what about the resurrection?  Why is this the untouchable exception?  Can we not use biological and medical evidence against the resurrection?  The only argument I have heard is that the resurrection is untouchable because it "might be possible" under some unknown or unseen circumstance or evidence.  Why cannot the same thing be said about the Genesis story of Adam and Eve?

One is an untestable, unfalsifiable claim the other is not. If the story in Genesis was literally true it would throw entire fields of science on their head. If the story of the resserection is true, there is no impact to current science.

 

We know that Christ was crucified until dead, that a spear punctured his lung to remove all doubt.  His body remained for 3 days in a total anoxic state.  Even if Jesus's heart did miraculously start beating on its own after 3 days with no defibrillator, the punctured lung and subsequent infection caused by the unsterile instrument wound would have killed him shortly after.  Either way, he would have been completely brain dead.  Then you have to explain his immortal state!  There is no scientific if's, and's or but's about it, it is impossible!

 

You are right, while science cannot comment on the "resurrection" it can comment on the surrounding claims.  In the same way science cannot comment on "Adam and Eve", but it can comment on the surrounding claims.  And scientifically speaking, both claims are doubtful!

Science is silent on whether God exists, whether there is an invisible tea pot orbiting between jupiter and satarn and all other untestable unfalsifiable claims. The origin of humans does not fit into one of these catagories. I can produce scores of science articles about development of life on earth and human evolution, migration, and history. I am not aware of any scientific article anywhere that studies or contemplates Christ's (or anyone else's for that matter) ressurection.

Edited September 22, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

Anything you want to believe is fine with me.  It is your own salvation you are messing with.

[pogi]

The origin of humans on earth is not a religious claim, it is a scientific claim.

 

Unless I mistakenly got the names "Adam and Eve" from my science books, the origin of humans on earth absolutely is a religious claim.  It just happens to be a claim that science disagrees with in support of their own claim.   Both science and religion also make contrasting claims on the limits of human biology. 

 

If the story in Genesis was literally true it would through [throw] entire fields of science on their head. If the story of the resserection [resurrection]is true, there is no impact to current science.

 

 

No impact to current science?  Really??  It would completley change our understanding of just about everything scientific! 

Edited September 22, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Unless I mistakenly got the names "Adam and Eve" from my science books, the origin of humans on earth absolutely is a religious claim.  It just happens to be a claim that science disagrees with.

Perhaps we are talking past each other a bit. The idea of Adam and Eve is certainly a religious claim. This idea however falls into the realm of science. If Adam and Eve and the fall as laid out in the scriptures literally happened, it would have huge implications for science. We'd have to throw our understanding of DNA out the window. We'd have to throw out our understanding of geology, out the window. Our understanding of how atoms work and atomic decay would have to be reworked. We'd have to rewrite the history of the peoples around the world, and throw out as forgeries ancient fossils and other evidences.

 

No impact to current science?  Really??  It would completley change our understanding of just about everything scientific!

 

What impact to science does the ressurection of a man that lived over 2000 years ago make? Does it change current cancer treatments? Does it change our understanding of DNA? Does it do anything? What scientific (i.e. testable, falsifiable) predictions can we make if we accept Christ's ressurection?

Edited September 22, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

"We know" this, how?

Genetic studies.

[bluebell]

That's true, but at the same time the "Fall" event is also not required in order to explain the need for an atonement. It is simply one of many possible explanations. 

 

It is if the LDS doctrine of the Atonement is true.  

[bluebell]

No other explanation is consistent with orthodox LDS doctrine, but at the same time there are many conceivable alternate explanations for the atonement. We are not limited to merely orthodox explanations in this discussion. The question we're debating is whether belief in a literal Adam & Eve is required to comprehend the atonement. I would argue that a figurative Adam & Eve work just as well. 

 

But, going back to the OP-Holland didn't say that one must believe in an actual Adam and Eve in order to believe in a 'conceivable alternative explanation for the Atonement'.  That discussion is expanding the topic beyond where he was going with it.  

 

Holland is speaking about very specific doctrine-the doctrine of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church.

 

He has claimed that one cannot believe in the doctrine of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church and not believe in an actual Adam and Eve.  The OP asked whether or not that is true.  I haven't seen any evidence presented that contradicts Holland's point.

[pogi]

What impact to science does the ressurection of a man that lived over 2000 years ago make? Does it change current cancer treatments? Does it change our understanding of DNA? Does it do anything? What scientific (i.e. testable, falsifiable) predictions can we make if we accept Christ's ressurection?

 

Would this not give validity to the story of Adam, not only by validating Bible claims in general, but by providing proof that man can indeed be formed and given life from the literal dust of the earth? 

 

It would fundamentally alter the foundation of science which presupposes a naturalistic worldview among other things, as such an event as resurrection is viewed as "supernatural" by science. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Would this not give validity to the story of Adam, not only by validating Bible claims in general, but by providing proof that man can indeed be formed and given life from the literal dust of the earth? 

The question is what is the impact to science, not what impact would accepting the ressurection have on the believer. The ressurection is not provable or disprovable by science. If one accepts the ressurection, one might be more inclined to believe other biblical passages, but not necessarily follow. Can you point to one established scientific theory that must be reworked if one accepts that the ressurection literally happened? Pretty please?

It would fundamentally alter the foundation of science which presupposes a naturalistic worldview among other things, as such an event as resurrection is viewed as "supernatural" by science. 

So the answer is no impact to science? You are correct that science presupposes a naturalistic worldview, as all other worldviews do not produce testable, falsifiable predictions. Science does not and has not claimed the supernatural doesn't exist. Science by definition cannot comment on the supernatural. The supernatural exists outside the methods of science. If one accepts that miracles (such as the ressurection) happen, there is no impact whatsoever on the scientific method or existing theories.

[pogi]

If one accepts that miracles (such as the ressurection) happen, there is no impact whatsoever on the scientific method or existing theories.

 

One must abandon the presuppositions of science in acceptance of "miracles"...no?

 

You are arguing against your own position here, because if one considers the creation of Adam and Eve a "miracle", then "there is no impact whatsoever on the scientific method or existing theories", as you say.   

Edited September 23, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

One must abandon the presuppositions of science in acceptance of "miracles"...no?

You are arguing against your own position here, because if one considers the creation of Adam and Eve a "miracle", then "there is no impact whatsoever on the scientific method or existing theories", as you say.

I must not be making myself clear. Science doesn't deal in miracles. It doesn't have the tools. My belief in miracles has no impact whatsoever on science, scientific theories or the scientific method.

A belief in a literal fall as laid out in the scriptures means that the theory of evolution is false. The fossil record is bunk. Our understanding of nuclear decay is garbage. Our knowledge of dna, mutation and inheritance has to be revisited. Neanderthal and other fossils need to be reexplained. Most of what we know about these fields needs to be tossed out the window to accept a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall as laid out in the scriptures. Now please explain what scientific theories need to be revisited by accepting Christ's resurrection. If you can't list anything specific, perhaps it is time to acknowledge the two are very different in terms of impact to our current scientific understanding.

[Robert F. Smith]

"We know" this, how?

Through the DNA of the human species, through basic principles of evolution (the transition between species is fuzzy), and through the fossil record.

The theoretical transition is indeed "fuzzy," and we must bear in mind what the Brethren have said about the primal base pair (the first pair of humans) being brought from another planet to begin human reproduction.  Adam and Eve are not so much names as designations in Hebrew of "man" and "woman."  Biological evolution has a different theoretical basis for the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens, which begins with spontaneous generation of life on Earth, and proceeds with development from one-celled animals through a series of subsequent forms of more complex life, ending in human life -- and all the other species.  Which theory is correct?  Or are both merely versions of the same theory?  One of my friends, for example, thinks that evolution is God's method for doing all that, the story in Genesis 1 - 3 being merely figurative or allegorical of the whole long process.

 

If one prefers to see the long period of innocence in the forest (Garden of Eden) as a group of bonobos (Pan paniscus), pending evolution, should we have a problem with that?

Edited September 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

My belief in miracles has no impact whatsoever on science, scientific theories or the scientific method.

 

Of course your beliefs in miracles do not impact science.  Science will go on with its own presuppositions regardless of what you believe.  The question is, can you personally maintain intellectual integrity by acknowledging both miracles and the presuppositions of science?  

 

Now please explain what scientific theories need to be revisited by accepting Christ's resurrection. If you can't list anything specific, perhaps it is time to acknowledge the two are very different in terms of impact to our current scientific understanding.

 

 

Besides violating the presuppositional foundation of scientific thought, the idea of resurrection and immortality violate the laws of thermodynamics.  

[Bobbieaware]

Of course your beliefs in miracles do not impact science.  Science will go on with its own presuppositions regardless of what you believe.  The question is, can you personally maintain intellectual integrity by acknowledging both miracles and the presuppositions of science?  

 

 

 

Besides violating the presuppositional foundation of scientific thought, the idea of resurrection and immortality violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Please excuse me if I'm missing the obvious (I can be obtuse at times), but just to make things clear so I'll have a better understanding of where you stand in future posts, do I correctly observe you do not believe in the resurrection and immortality?

[Calm]

 

Besides violating the presuppositional foundation of scientific thought, the idea of resurrection and immortality violate the laws of thermodynamics.

I think that is only a problem in a completely closed system. If you have energy to add, you can go from a lower to a higher level of order.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Of course!  Jesus was using molecular nanotechnology...that explains everything!

 

Maybe, how do you know he didn't? You can't prove he didn't.

 

Or perhaps God used another sophisticated method.  

Edited September 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Of course your beliefs in miracles do not impact science.  Science will go on with its own presuppositions regardless of what you believe.  The question is, can you personally maintain intellectual integrity by acknowledging both miracles and the presuppositions of science?  

 

Besides violating the presuppositional foundation of scientific thought, the idea of resurrection and immortality violate the laws of thermodynamics.

You know its quite possible that we are talking past each other. Earlier in the thread Bluebell and Gray had a conversation that started with this:

 

Besides that, you make an excellent point.  It would be interesting to understand the thinking of someone who believes that Adam and Eve can't have existed because of the science, yet does believe in the Savior despite what science says about Him.

You responded to one of Gray's posts, and I responded to one of yours. If all you are saying is that the resserection has no known scientific explaination, I agree. Similarly, positing a literal fall (which implies a literal Adam, a literal Eve created with incoruptable imortal bodies on an earth that has no death) also has no scientific explaination. Both are miracles, and operate outside of what science can test and predict. If that is all you are saying, I have no issues.

The question that I was trying to answer was bluebell's: "It would be interesting to understand the thinking of someone who believes that Adam and Eve can't have existed because of the science, yet does believe in the Savior despite what science says about Him."

Over the last few centuries scientists have been working very hard to understand the world around them. Our understanding of geology, archeology, physics, paleontology, and biology has been vastly expanded. Experiments have been conducted. Mountains of phsyical evidence have been accumulated. These diverse fields all point to an ancient earth, evolution, common descent, and the presence of man as a species for at least 100,000 years. The evidence is very compelling. BYU professors of biology teach human evolution because they have looked at the evidence and believe it.

Both the fall and the atonement require faith to believe in. Neither has a scientific explanation. However, to accept a literal fall means that I must close my eyes to a good portion of all these fields of study and the mountains of evidence they have produced. I must look at my hand and say it doesn't exist. Accepting a literal atonment requires none of this. I can believe in the atonment without rejecting a single scientific theory, or paper. It truly is a matter solely of faith. I have said my piece - if you can't see the difference between the two at this point, I have nothing left to add.

Peace brother.

[bluebell]

Please excuse me if I'm missing the obvious (I can be obtuse at times), but just to make things clear so I'll have a better understanding of where you stand in future posts, do I correctly observe you do not believe in the resurrection and immortality?

 

You have misunderstood him.  He's saying that science does not support the possibility of resurrection and immortality.  

[Gray]

It is if the LDS doctrine of the Atonement is true.  

 

Well, it sounds like what you're trying to say is, "If LDS doctrine on this topic is true, then it's true."

 

That's obviously the case, but that's not really the argument here. 

[Gray]

But, going back to the OP-Holland didn't say that one must believe in an actual Adam and Eve in order to believe in a 'conceivable alternative explanation for the Atonement'.  That discussion is expanding the topic beyond where he was going with it.  

 

Holland is speaking about very specific doctrine-the doctrine of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church.

 

He has claimed that one cannot believe in the doctrine of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church and not believe in an actual Adam and Eve.  The OP asked whether or not that is true.  I haven't seen any evidence presented that contradicts Holland's point.

 

I disagree with Elder Holland. You can believe in the LDS doctrine on atonement while believing that the fall represents each person's unique and individual fall from grace. In fact many people do. That belief leaves no lingering questions on "why was atonement required?"

[Gray]

The theoretical transition is indeed "fuzzy," and we must bear in mind what the Brethren have said about the primal base pair (the first pair of humans) being brought from another planet to begin human reproduction.  Adam and Eve are not so much names as designations in Hebrew of "man" and "woman."  Biological evolution has a different theoretical basis for the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens, which begins with spontaneous generation of life on Earth, and proceeds with development from one-celled animals through a series of subsequent forms of more complex life, ending in human life -- and all the other species.  Which theory is correct?  Or are both merely versions of the same theory?  One of my friends, for example, thinks that evolution is God's method for doing all that, the story in Genesis 1 - 3 being merely figurative or allegorical of the whole long process.

 

If one prefers to see the long period of innocence in the forest (Garden of Eden) as a group of bonobos (Pan paniscus), pending evolution, should we have a problem with that?

 

There are certainly interpretations of the Adam and Eve story that could make it harmonious with current scientific understanding. In fact, as you note, Adam can be translated as the generic "man". I believe it's a symbolic story representing the human experience. And nothing about that idea contradicts any science. As myth the story becomes ripe with meaning and many potential interpretations. A fundamentalist view of the story falls flat, IMO. 

 

I don't think the idea of our origin on another planet has any legs, though. There is too much evidence of our terrestrial evolution from previous species. 

[CV75]

I can believe in the atonment without rejecting a single scientific theory, or paper. It truly is a matter solely of faith. I have said my piece - if you can't see the difference between the two at this point, I have nothing left to add.

You mention belief, but not the comprehension and appreciation Elder Holland is talking about. We can believe in the Atonement and Resurrection without fully comprehending them, and without adequately appreciating the unique purpose of His life. And that may be good enough or all we have at the moment, but it is best to fully comprehend and adequately appreciate these things, and that is the greatest aim. One element of accomplishing that is by understanding that there was an actual Fall, even in face of not understanding how that can be in light of the imperfect meaning we attach to our science.

 

We can likewise understand that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, without understanding the mechanics.

 

It may help to look at what an actual fall entails. Are you actually fallen? How did you get that way? What was the event? In biological terms, yes, you are mortal; you became mortal through heredity; the event was your conception and birth. Biologically, your Eden was remaining in the same potential state of being, never becoming a carrier of genetic material.

 

How far back does inheriting genes from your parents go? At some point there was an Adam and an Eve, as identified in scripture, whose genealogy is recorded with them being first. Of course they had parents; some might say they were “pre-Adamites,” or some might say, “the last universal ancestor,” or “terrestrial beings from another planet.” Who is to say? At some point there was an actual Adam and Eve that got the genealogy or sealing chain that pertains to our atonement started, and who were as recognizably human as your parents. And without them, there would be no Jesus either to save you.

 

How far back do fallen people go in this world? For practical purposes (and the life of Jesus was very practical!), to Adam and Eve. How far back does heredity go? To Adam and Eve, who were chosen as the starting point, at least by covenant and practical purposes. How far back did they actually live? Some say 6,000 years; some say far longer and the Biblical genealogy just picks up with that particular Adam and Eve.

 

An Adam and Eve lived in an actual place (Eden). This, as with you, was only a potentially mortal existence (2 Nephi 2: 22-23; remaining forever static, never actually passing on their genetic material). Once they left or fell, they changed their estate and began their role as our first parents. The event of their leaving, the Fall, was their arrival into mortality by incorporating a particular material into their systems, just as your erstwhile gametes mutually incorporated themselves into each other. We may not understand the mechanics as much as we do fertilization or transfection, but it was just as much an actual event as are these.

 

This is why the statement, "…the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it" does reflect reality.

[bluebell]

I disagree with Elder Holland. You can believe in the LDS doctrine on atonement while believing that the fall represents each person's unique and individual fall from grace. 

 

I know that's what you believe, but you haven't demonstrated that its possible with any evidence yet.  

 

 

That belief leaves no lingering questions on "why was atonement required?"

 

 

A person's individual fall does not explain why babies need the Atonement, for example.  You have said before that our individual falls are predicated upon a knowledge of good and evil and the use of our agency.  But, babies needing the Atonement is a part of the LDS doctrine on the Atonement even though they are incapable of such knowledge and conscious use of their agency.  

 

In your belief, why do babies, who cannot fall (as you define the term) need the Atonement?  You might have shared your thoughts on that before and i just missed it with all the posts going back and forth.  If so then i apologize for asking for it again.

 

 

 

 

Edited to clarify what I didn't say very well the first time.

Edited September 23, 2015 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You mention belief, but not the comprehension and appreciation Elder Holland is talking about. We can believe in the Atonement and Resurrection without fully comprehending them, and without adequately appreciating the unique purpose of His life. And that may be good enough or all we have at the moment, but it is best to fully comprehend and adequately appreciate these things, and that is the greatest aim. One element of accomplishing that is by understanding that there was an actual Fall, even in face of not understanding how that can be in light of the imperfect meaning we attach to our science.

We can likewise understand that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, without understanding the mechanics.

It may help to look at what an actual fall entails. Are you actually fallen? How did you get that way? What was the event? In biological terms, yes, you are mortal; you became mortal through heredity; the event was your conception and birth. Biologically, your Eden was remaining in the same potential state of being, never becoming a carrier of genetic material.

How far back does inheriting genes from your parents go? At some point there was an Adam and an Eve, as identified in scripture, whose genealogy is recorded with them being first. Of course they had parents; some might say they were “pre-Adamites,” or some might say, “the last universal ancestor,” or “terrestrial beings from another planet.” Who is to say? At some point there was an actual Adam and Eve that got the genealogy or sealing chain that pertains to our atonement started, and who were as recognizably human as your parents. And without them, there would be no Jesus either to save you.

How far back do fallen people go in this world? For practical purposes (and the life of Jesus was very practical!), to Adam and Eve. How far back does heredity go? To Adam and Eve, who were chosen as the starting point, at least by covenant and practical purposes. How far back did they actually live? Some say 6,000 years; some say far longer and the Biblical genealogy just picks up with that particular Adam and Eve.

An Adam and Eve lived in an actual place (Eden). This, as with you, was only a potentially mortal existence (2 Nephi 2: 22-23; remaining forever static, never actually passing on their genetic material). Once they left or fell, they changed their estate and began their role as our first parents. The event of their leaving, the Fall, was their arrival into mortality by incorporating a particular material into their systems, just as your erstwhile gametes mutually incorporated themselves into each other. We may not understand the mechanics as much as we do fertilization or transfection, but it was just as much an actual event as are these.

This is why the statement, "…the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it" does reflect reality.

Appreciate the well thought out post here. You always make me think. I will add that I was not addressing Elder Holland's point but merely responding to Bluebell wondering why a literal fall gives some people pause, while the atonement does not. Edited September 23, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

Well, it sounds like what you're trying to say is, "If LDS doctrine on this topic is true, then it's true."

 

That's obviously the case, but that's not really the argument here. 

 

I'm saying that if the LDS doctrine of the Atonement is true, then the Fall is the only thing that explains why everyone, including babies, needs it.