Do You Believe in Adam and Eve?

[sojourner]

dessert nomads

These are the people who wander eternally from the cake table to the pie table to the pastry table.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I'm not sure what truth you are talking about. I'm using "truth" in the sense of that which is accordance with fact or reality. If you what to argue that the reality we experience is not the truth, that's fine but has little to do with what I've said.

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.

So I'll take it that you don't believe Adam and Eve existed.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Ok, didn't expect it to apply to a lot. Just curious for those it did, how they go about adjusting their thinking.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Really nice to hear from so many non-Christians.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Actually, it does. Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-Chromosome Adam have been shown to be the source of all modern humans, that the gene pool bottlenecked at these two. Granted, they live 150,000 years apart or so, but nonetheless, there is a truth that all humans can be traced back to one Adam and one Eve, or one male and one female.

I'm not saying of course this means the Bible "knew" this magically somehow. Rather, in its vision of human origins, they kind of got that right.

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

Aside from that genetic factoid above, I would say the characters Adam and Eve really existed in our history as an image of our own humanness. We created these parents in our mythologies, and who we are as humans gives them a reality, far greater than just being mere people. They are symbolic of the whole, and that makes them us and us them. None of this of course has anything to do with "scientific knowledge" It goes beyond just simply that.

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.

Allegory is a little weak of a word. Archetypal forms, is more like it. We see ourselves in them. It is a story created by ancient men, yes, but it's poetry, and that is what makes it truth.

Or do you just dismiss scientific theory altogether?

There no need to for me.

 

[leov]

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?

Science say that 95% of mass-energy of universe is not seen or detected only calculated...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm open-minded about their existence but even if they don't exist as historical persons, there is still great philosophical truth about human nature and life to be found in their story. I fail to see how the Bible containing sacred myths that aren't literally fact means that God doesn't exist.

 

[Nakosis]

Science say that 95% of mass-energy of universe is not seen or detected only calculated...

We don't know what we don't know, right?. So why invest much belief in what we don't know?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure what truth you are talking about. I'm using "truth" in the sense of that which is accordance with fact or reality.

What dies that even mean? Facts are relative, subjective bits of human experience and reasoning. "Reality" is an imaginary "unified whole" that we plug all these "facts" we've gathered, into. What is the truth of any of this? ... We have no idea.

What's time to a pig? (reference to an old southern joke/story)

If you what to argue that the reality we experience is not the truth, that's fine but has little to do with what I've said.

It has everything to do with what anyone says.

So I'll take it that you don't believe Adam and Eve existed.

Exist(ed), how? They certainly exist(ed) as characters in a famous mythical story. They also exist(ed) as particularized 'identities' in the minds of a significant number of humans, just as you or I might exist as a particular 'identity' in the minds of some other humans. They exist as iconic symbols/embodiments of some fundamental human attributes and proclivities. Some of which I believe to be universal.

Point being; that the question being asked is way too vague. That phrase "believe in" always throws me way off course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Careful, you are describing quite a few believers here (not that I disagree with you).

 

[Subduction Zone]

To answer the OP the story clearly did not happen literally. If there is some religious message buried within it I will leave that to believers. The story might work as a morality tale of sorts. As history it fails utterly.

 

[leov]

We don't know what we don't know, right?. So why invest much belief in what we don't know?

Because we CAN know.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm open-minded about their existence but even if they don't exist as historical persons, there is still great philosophical truth about human nature and life to be found in their story. I fail to see how the Bible containing sacred myths that aren't literally fact means that God doesn't exist.

It doesn't just a possibility equal to any other.

So I've seen over and over from many sources the evolution of the earth and the theory seems to support what we do know about the earth. Seems to me reasonable to accept the TOE. So if one does accept this view of evolution it'd seem difficult to reconcile that to the creation story of the Bible.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

by dessert nomads.

How do I become a dessert nomad, do I get to wander the earth trying out all the ice cream in every town

 

[Nakosis]

Because we CAN know.

As a gnostic you'd say that.
I'd ask what you do know, but that never seems to go well.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Because of what the allegories of scripture seem to be saying, plus of course teaching and tradition, aesthetics, personal experience..... there can be a variety of reasons, depending on the person.

But we are now wandering from the subject of the thread, I think.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It doesn't just a possibility equal to any other.

So I've seen over and over from many sources the evolution of the earth and the theory seems to support what we do know about the earth. Seems to me reasonable to accept the TOE. So if one does accept this view of evolution it'd seem difficult to reconcile that to the creation story of the Bible.

Well, they exist to me on a certain level, even if they aren't historical persons.

 

[leov]

As a gnostic you'd say that.
I'd ask what you do know, but that never seems to go well.

I am in a process of writing a list of what I know, converting Saint-Exupery's Box.

 

[Nakosis]

What dies that even mean? Facts are relative, subjective bits of human experience and reasoning. "Reality" is an imaginary "unified whole" that we plug all these "facts" we've gathered, into. What is the truth of any of this? ... We have no idea.

What's time to a pig? (reference to an old southern joke/story)
It has everything to do with what anyone says.

If we have no idea about this truth then then I don't see much benefit of bringing it up. I'm just using a common dictionary definition, not something quite so existential.

Exist(ed), how? They certainly exist(ed) as characters in a famous mythical story. They also exist(ed) as particularized 'identities' in the minds of a significant number of humans, just as you or I might exist as a particular 'identity' in the minds of some other humans. They exist as iconic symbols/embodiments of some fundamental human attributes and proclivities. Some of which I believe to be universal.

Point being; that the question being asked is way too vague. That phrase "believe in" always throws me way off course.

Well let's see if I can rephrase it for you...

If you think that Adam and Eve existed as actual ancestors of man and also accept the TOE as the best explanation for how mankind came about, how do you reconcile to two beliefs?

Do you see the biblical story as allegory.
Or do you simply reject the TOE?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

From Wikipedia :: Mitochondrial Eve :: note 14 ..
.

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species".​