Do You Believe in Adam and Eve?

[Nakosis]

Scientific knowledge does not support the existence of an Adam or an Eve.

So if you do believe Adam and Eve existed, how do you square that with scientific knowledge.

Or if you see it as an allegory, then why not see God as an allegory too? Just a story created by ancient man to convey moral ideas.

Or do you just dismiss scientific theory altogether?

 

[Altfish]

No, made up people to explain the unknown by dessert nomads.

 

[sun rise]

There was a mitochondrial Eve. And there is a
Y-chromosomal Adam but they weren't necessarily married to each other or lived at the same time.

 

[PureX]

No one is obliged to "square" anything with scientific theory.

 

[McBell]

No one is obliged to "square" anything with scientific theory.

Who claimed otherwise?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Scientific knowledge does not support the existence of an Adam or an Eve.

So if you do believe Adam and Eve existed, how do you square that with scientific knowledge.

Or if you see it as an allegory, then why not see God as an allegory too? Just a story created by ancient man to convey moral ideas.

It's mythology. Allegory.

I'm certain Adam and Eve never existed except in tales told ,and books written.

Same as the mythological God of Israel.

 

[Vinayaka]

Neither ... is that an acceptable choice?

 

[Nakosis]

There was a mitochondrial Eve. And there is a
Y-chromosomal Adam but they weren't necessarily married to each other or lived at the same time.

Ok, but this information comes from the last several decades. IOW, information not available to the biblical authors. So no real reason to believe there is any relationship between information uncovered by science and the biblical story of Adam and Eve.

 

[epronovost]

I believe in Adam and Steve

 

[Nakosis]

No one is obliged to "square" anything with scientific theory.

Well scientists are, however I suppose it's not really necessary for anyone else to concern themselves with science.

 

[exchemist]

Who claimed otherwise?

The OP assumed it was necessary if one believes in a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[Nakosis]

Neither ... is that an acceptable choice?

So no Adam and Eve and no allegory/hidden meaningful message in the story?

I suppose that's my view, so I guess it has to be acceptable.

 

[Nakosis]

The OP assumed it was necessary if one believes in a literal Adam and Eve.

Good point, added the option to dismiss scientific theory.

 

[Vinayaka]

So no Adam and Eve and no allegory/hidden meaningful message in the story?

I suppose that's my view, so I guess it has to be acceptable.

It's outside of where my mind can go, so therefore 'no decision'.

 

[exchemist]

Scientific knowledge does not support the existence of an Adam or an Eve.

So if you do believe Adam and Eve existed, how do you square that with scientific knowledge.

Or if you see it as an allegory, then why not see God as an allegory too? Just a story created by ancient man to convey moral ideas.

One could view the depiction of God in scripture as largely allegorical, certainly. If there is a God, it seems at any rate unlikely that ancient writers would have been able to capture, in words, a full description.

 

[PureX]

Well scientists are, however I suppose it's not really necessary for anyone else to concern themselves with science.

My point is that science is not a decider of truth. All it can do is show us how things function, physically. Unless some theory about how things function together, physically, has been posited by a religion, there is no reason to consider it

 

[columbus]

I believe in Adam and Eve.

I also believe in George Washington, Jesus, Gandalf, and Santa Claus.



Tom

 

[Nakosis]

My point is that science is not a decider of truth. All it can do is show us how things function, physically. Unless some theory about how things function together, physically, has been posited by a religion, there is no reason to consider it

Science is the decider of what is not true. Allowing a person to have a greater degree of confidence in what has not yet been disproven. Religion has provided plenty of theology, which has been disproven, like the existence of an actual Adam or Eve.

 

[Nakosis]

One could view the depiction of God in scripture as largely allegorical, certainly. If there is a God, it seems at any rate unlikely that ancient writers would have been able to capture, in words, a full description.

Or any description.
I can consciously create any god I want, give them whatever attributes I think appropriate. Even give them existence in my unconscious mind. Even if there was a God, my "God" need have nothing to do with reality.

Lots of differing ideas about creation, God. If you find it useful, fine. I suppose I see little benefit in putting any stock into one ancient story about creation over any other. So why not simply dismiss them all of having any factual basis?

IOW, a belief in any God can't be disproven. So any believe about God is as likely to be as true/untrue as any other belief about God. Why then put stock in any one of them?

 

[PureX]

Science is the decider of what is not true.

No, it's not. All the scientific process can do is show us what theories about physical functionality, function, physically, and what theories about physical functionality do not. Physical functionality is not truth. It may be a part of the truth (or it may be part of an illusion, for all we know) but partial truths are merely facts, not to be confused with truth.

Allowing a person to have a greater degree of confidence in what has not yet been disproven. Religion has provided plenty of theology, which has been disproven, like the existence of an actual Adam or Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve is not "theology". It is "mythology". And any "theologian" that asserts that religious myths are factual history is an idiot. And science cannot prove nor disprove anything to an idiot.