Original Sin - Scripture and Reason

In most Christian traditions our understanding of God is based on the three legged stool metaphor. The three legs are of course scripture, tradition and reason. The subject of the Idea of original sin has been dealt with before and most recently in the Bible Study Forum.I’d like to suggest that we should look at original sin from the point of view of understanding the Biblical or scriptural view through human reasoning.To start with I understand the Biblical creation story as inspired metaphor and most definitely not to be understood as anything more than that. Essentially it boils down to the fact that all things are created by God and that humans have been instilled with the ability to understand right and wrong. In addition humans are intended to choose what is right and use the correct choices to be good stewards of what has been created. (Not really doing all that well — are we? )As a Christian, I believe that God has given us minds that reason and that He intends us to use that reason to form our understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. It is my contention that science falls firmly into the category of reason and as I have said in other threads I view science as natural theology. Ultimately then, theology and science are going to be congruent. As there is a great deal we don’t understand about in either field the congruency is not always obvious to us.I want to attempt to explain where I see congruency through reason and scripture on the subject of original sin.I think that we can safely assume that Richard Dawkins’ views are going to be based on reason and not scripture. He wrote a book The Selfish Gene and I think that he is on to something. Here is a brief quote from wiki on the subject of The Selfish Gene.

quote:

---

In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

---

Dawkins wrote that genes behave as if they are selfish but in his book The Selfish Gene he writes:

quote:

---

we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather is if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose.

---

Dawkins also claims that we as humans can overcome this natural selfishness that is inherent in our genes. He also writes this:

quote:

---

We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

---

What Dawkins has done, based on reason, is to come up with a concept of original sin. He says from the quote above that we have the natural selfishness in our genes. He then goes on to say that we are cultured by what he has termed memes. He tells us that because of memes we can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators.If we get away from the view held by some Christians that the Bible is to be read like a science text or newspaper then we can see many parallels with Dawkins’ ideas. The Bible tells us that we have knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose between them. The term original sin is not a Biblical term but comes from the Christian understanding that we are born with a basic nature of selfishness, which is consistent with Dawkins view that we are born with selfish genes.I don’t think that anyone would disagree that as humans our tendencies towards selfishness or unselfishness evolve over time both as individuals and as societies. Dawkins’ view is that this is a result of memetics. The definition of a meme varies but this is the best I could find.

quote:

---

A meme is an information pattern which is capable of being copied to another individual’s memory, mostly by means of imitation (though other techniques are possible as well) and which is subject to a selection process.

---

The quote was from this site on memtics. As we can see from this, memes are not physical but are non-physical thoughts and ideas that can be passed from one person to another resulting in the change of thoughts and ideas of individuals and societies. Dawkins believes, as I understand him, that we are infected, either positively or negatively by these memes or social replicators.The Christian view using the scriptures, and the reasoning of Dawkins together, form a consistent message. As humans we have the freedom to make choices and we understand the difference between good and evil or selfishness and unselfishness. We understand that we should choose unselfishness or goodness, but that there is something basic within us that we have to overcome in order to commit acts for the benefit of someone else at our own expense.The point I’m trying to make is this:Original sin has always been a difficult doctrine to understand. My contention is that if we combine scripture and reason it is no longer difficult. Dawkins came to his understanding of selfish genes that we are born with through reason, and if we overlay the Genesis story with his reasoning we gain, what is in my view, a clear concept of original sin, along with the realization that we should move beyond that in our lives.Out of that point I also want to say that Christians should apply both reason and scripture to our understanding of God and that science is born out of reason and could just as easily be called natural theology.Of course Dawkins would consider his memes as having a strictly natural origin whereas I would see memes as God working in us. However, IMHO we have come to agreement on the basic nature of the human condition, and from my perspective a clearer understanding of our existence and the nature of God.I'm not really sure which forum is best for this so I am wide open to suggestion.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

As the topic is both about scripture and reason I don't see it as being limited to science or religion. It is probably best then under "Social and Religious Issues" and under that I suppose Faith and Belief".What do you think?

Essentially I agree. The word sin has some connotations that can drag us down in this discussion but I wanted to use the term "original sin" in order to give us a starting point that is understood by all.I would say that we are all born with a selfish nature with no real understanding of selflessness. From the quotes in the OP we can see that Dawkins would agree with that, as does the Bible, although less directly than Dawkins. That isn't to say that this is necessarily a bad thing because obviously the survival instinct plays into that self centred nature. Yes, there is a long way to go but I disagree that things aren’t improving. Less than 2000 years ago the most civilized nations on the planet found it entertaining to watch people fight to the death or to watch people being killed by wild animals. We have massive programs for foreign aid. We have invested huge sums into healing the sick. There are programs that help the poor in our own nations. There is a lot wrong, but there is also a lot that is right and I think that it is evident that if we take the long view that the world is a better place now than it has been in the past. I don’t accept that view of Christianity. It is in contradiction with both reason and scripture. Christians believing that should read through Romans 2 because Paul doesn’t agree with it either. Jesus is very clear that it is about love and mercy. My signature from the OT encapsulates the message of God for us. I agree that we shouldn’t cherry pick verses but that verse along with Jesus saying that loving God and neighbour is the foundation for all of the laws. It is all a heart thing, whether we accept that the ability to love comes from God or not. There are many atheists who seem to be a lot more loving than many of us Christians as near as I can tell. Well, I’m a Christian. I find that Christian philosophy makes sense of the world and human history for me. I also find that the little I know of science very much helps complete the picture. It is my view that in rejecting either we have an incomplete picture, but that is my belief which obviously isn’t shared by everyone.

But I don’t think that is what Dawkins is saying. I’ll repeat the quote I used in the OP.

quote:

---

We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

---

I understand Dawkins to be saying that genetically speaking we are born selfish but with memes or social replicators we can overcome the, selfish genes of our birth. As he says, we are built as gene machines but cultured as meme machines. I don’t see either Dawkins view, or the Christian view as it being something in humans that encourages "bad" behaviour. I agree that selfish genes can cause good behaviour in the sense that co-operation can be beneficial for the individual or for his/her gene pool. I don’t see it as being about good and bad behaviour precisely, but more about our motivations and desires. I understand Dawkins to be saying that we can develop true altruism, (benefitting others at the expense of ourselves, gene poll or tribe), and that this is done by the spread of memes.As I said in the OP I view the creation story as inspired metaphor or myth for that matter. I believe that it in essence saying that we are born with selfish genes to use Dawkins’ language. Where we differ is that Dawkins sees true altruism being spread as a result of naturalistic memes, whereas I would see altruism being spread by the spark of God working in us and being spread in meme like fashion to others as well. I guess I don’t disagree with the statement itself but it doesn’t address the point I’m making for reasons that I think I’ve explained in the last couple of paragraphs.

I assume that because you used the Ayn Rand quote that you would understand original sin in the same way that she describes it.With that understanding of "original sin" I agree with your assessment of it. I just don't see it that way. I agree with Dawkins that we are born with "selfish genes" but that we are able to overcome them in this life.I agree with Rand's statement from your quote when she says

quote:

---

It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man.

---

That is beautifully put. She says, far more eloquently than I ever could, what I was trying to say to Paul. It isn't about our actions but it is about the essence of our nature. (What a great phrase. Thanks for that quote.)

OK but I understand Dawkins to be saying that genes can only generate behaviour that appears selfless. Genes on their own only function in order to best support their survival.Here are two quotes that I used in the OP.

quote:

---

In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

---

quote:

---

we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather is if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose.

---

Genes function through mindless natural selection and primarily function as genetic replicators. Dawkins view is that there are social replicators that have naturally evolved over time that enable us to overcome our selfish genes.He also says this in The Selfish Gene.

quote:

---

We have now arrived back at the point we left at the end of Chapter 1. There we saw that selfishness is to be expected in any entity that deserves the title of a basic unit of natural selection. We saw that some people regard the species as the unit of natural selection, others the population or group within the species, and yet others the individual. I said that I preferred to think of the gene as the fundamental unit of natural selection, and therefore the fundamental unit of self-interest. What I have now done is to define the gene in such a way that I cannot really help being right!

---

I don’t see that in what I have read. I only see that selfish genes can give rise to behaviour that appears to be selfless but in actuality isn’t. Can you give me a quote that supports that statement? Which supports my view that we still have a long way to go. However, the vast majority of people who find death in video games entertaining would still be horrified at watching someone being eaten by wild animals. I still maintain that we are progressing. That is a logical conclusion and Dawkins would agree with it. However a meme is a non-physical thought or idea and as such it is only conjecture whether or not it has evolved from totally natural non-intelligent and non-moral sources. Absolutely, and Paul as we see in Romans 2 would agree with you. I agree with your statement on genes but I’m not at all clear as to what the substrate would be for memes. I don’t agree that they do. The point of both Christianity and Dawkins proposal of memes, is that we can overcome our genetics, and that we are not a slave to them. If it is ok with you I’d like to leave that alone for now as I see it just dragging us off topic.

But that is my understanding. Dawkins is saying that even though our genes influence our behaviour for our own benefit, we are able to be something more than that and his vehicle for that are the memes that he writes about.The connection with original sin is that there is something, other than straightforward genetics, has allowed us to overcome our self serving genes so that we can actually in the best interests of others act against the genetics of our birth. All I’m saying is that original sin sounds very much like Dawkins phrase the selfish genes of our birth.Original sin is not a phrase from the Bible but a concept that we are born non-altruistic and it is something that hopefully becomes part of our natural nature. It certainly does not mean that infants are damned to hell or any other such nonsense.

OK, I have gone right through Chap 12. It focuses on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The point he is making is that in the long run we are selfishly better served by co-operating. Yes, he talks about genes behaving selfishly without regard to the organism, but as we are our genes, he also extends this natural selfishness to the organism himself. He talks about the cooperation between German and British troops in the trenches in WW I.The point I see it is this. Essentially, we are selfish, but in that selfishness we can find benefit from co-operating. That is how I understand the Christian concept of original sin. We are born selfish. That is where I see agreement between Dawkins proposal, which is the fundamental understanding behind the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It is understood that I will be trying to determine what will work out best for me and it might be by co-operating.However, he also acknowledges when he talks about blood donors in the UK, (by the way we aren’t paid for donating blood in Canada either), that people do this without any perceived benefit. He agrees that we can move beyond that. Actually, I don’t think his blood donor example is particularly strong, as by donating blood it could be perceived as encouraging others to donate blood so that there will be a supply available in case I need it.I think a better example is when someone in the developed world donates money to aid starving families in relatively undeveloped countries. For the individual it means less money for him/herself. From a societal point of view we would be better off without them as they are still consuming resources which would be available to us if they were to cease existing. Well, I think it does matter but that isn’t the point. I agree that Dawkins concept is primarily about bringing about cooperation because of our basic nature, but he would agree with you that memes would also be the medium through which we can behave altruistically.Dawkins point is that our natural nature, born out of our genealogy is to be selfish, even though this can and should promote co-operation. He does however agree that there is such a thing as altruism. (You might agree to play the cooperate card with the knowledge that I will play the deficit card out of your concern for me.) Dawkins has come to this conclusion through reason.When I read the Bible we have the Genesis story telling us that we gained the knowledge of good and evil. We then have the Cain and Abel story where it is clear that we chose evil or selfishness. (Original sin) The Bible is an on-going narrative of how God wants us to rise above that selfishness. That is the story that is in the scripture but that becomes a much clearer picture when we overlay the reasoning of Dawkins on top of that scriptural story to give it a much fuller meaning.I'm pretty much tied up for the rest of the day but I think that this covers, to a degree, the other responses.

Hi GrannyJust a quick response. I don't agreee. The Selfish Gene is a concept that is used to explain our actions that can appear to be altruistic. However, as Dawkins says:

quote:

---

We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

---

I suppose in trying to give a different understanding to the term, (one in which I feel is consistent with the Biblical story), that I am repudiating the "vile notion".AbE - I decided to look up Original Sin in wiki. It has over the years meant a number of things in different traditions. I don't think my understanding is anything new.Edited by GDR, : Added last bit

I think if I pull this statement out of your last post to me I can deal with your whole post and maybe even butt in on your discussion with jar.To start with I don’t see original sin to be about selfishly benefitting through apparently self-less acts. As a matter of fact, I don’t see acts that are clearly selfish as original sin. I see both the Christian concept of original sin and Dawkins concept of selfish genes to be about our essence, or our true nature. It is a heart thing. None of us are always going to do the selfish thing and none of us will always do the unselfish thing. It is about the actual desires of our heart. It is about where we find joy. Our acts are a symptom of what is in our heart. None of us IMHO, (including jar in spite of his protestations), are able to be certain about his motivation for taking in the neighbour’s garbage can. However, I and I contend Dawkins would agree, that there are acts that totally self-less acts done that do not have any benefit to the individual, his gene pool, or his tribe. I would suggest again that an example of that is someone who anonymously donates to the third world.Again I’ll use the quote from Dawkins.

quote:

---

We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.

---

In this it is strongly implicit that we are born as selfish creatures. (I’m not saying that this is a bad thing, but something that is probably necessary for survival.) Dawkins is also saying that that we can overcome the selfish genes of our birth.There is no specific Biblical verse that I can use, but I draw my understanding by regarding the context of the entire Bible, and I find it entirely consistent with Dawkins point. We are essentially born selfish. This quote is from wiki under original sin.

quote:

---

In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[7] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam.

---

I don’t see my view as being far from this view. Certainly there are other views, some of which I find reprehensible, but if you insist that only the reprehensible views are valid, then you are simply attacking the straw man which makes it pretty difficult to have a valid discussion.So again, I believe that Dawkins view that we are born into selfishness by our genes to be consistent with my view, (and the view of others), of the Christian understanding of the situation that we are born into. Both Dawkins and I agree that we are able to rise above that. I understand that you believe that altruism, is never truly altruistic, and that selfish genes can account for all apparent selflessness. I just don’t see any evidence for that. To believe that you would have to believe that all human compassion is born out of self-interest in one way or another. I just don’t see it, but as we can never know what lurks in the hearts of men we can only express our opinions, and my opinion is that you’re wrong. I’m even prepared to agree with Dawkins that there are non-physical memes that can be the vehicles by which we can rise up and reject the selfish genes of our birth. I would just add one meme that Dawkins would reject, (strongly I might add ), and that is that there is an ever present God that speaks through human, (and maybe even other life forms), imagination, hearts and minds.

I think I answered the first part of your post in my response to Modulous. Also I quoted part of the wiki page on original sin in my response to Mod as well which shows that my view isn't unique or new.Frankly I don't know what you mean by "extras-Biblical". Can you explain that and then I'll try to answer your question.Cheers

Absolutely, and I agree that is consistent with Christian doctrine. We are born with selfish genes but it is God’s desire that we, in Dawkinish, reject the selfish genes of our birth. Here is a quote from the OP I posted. The concept of original sin taken strictly from the Bible is ambiguous and as we can see from the wiki report has meant that we have several different understandings as to our nature at the time of our birth. However, if we take Dawkins reasoned approach and through that lens look at the scripture I contend that we can gain a much clearer understanding of the scriptures and apply that understanding to other Christian doctrines as well. I have to say, that I find that statement contradictory. If things are acting in their own self interest then it isn’t altruistic. In the last part of this quote you claim that acting in accordance to my selfish genes doesn’t make me selfish. If I’m not my genes then who am I? I apologise. You didn’t suggest that. I was thinking of Granny’s post when I wrote that. I think it is more profound than that, but essentially I agree. I agree, but on the other hand there is a great deal of biological knowledge that w e have now that supports the simple observation and the scripture. A lot of science that I’ve read shows that what we thought was simple observation was anything but. No problem there. I’d add though that we can overcome the selfish gene of wanting to have a nice dinner out by the meme that tells us to take the cost of that meal and give it to some impoverished person so that they can eat for several days.

Here are a couple more quotes from The Selfish Gene Then here is the quote that you referenced.

quote:

---

We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

---

If we then take the first two quotes and then take them in the context of your referenced quote I think we get a picture of what Dawkins is getting at.He is essentially saying we are our genes, our selfish genes, and it is into that state we are born. After that we have the ability to rise above that selfish state, because we become cultured by memes. I don’t think that they are synonymous. Selfishness is a state of mind and sin are the actions that flow from that state of mind. The Genesis story is a metaphor for the understanding of our base nature which is that we are selfish or self serving. Over the millennia since then men have worked at sorting out what it all means. One concept that was proposed, (after the time of Paul for that matter), was that of original sin. It is a term that stuck and so I decided to use it in the title of this thread as it gives us a term of reference to work with. I’m not at all keen on the term either.It isn’t that a baby is born in sin but that he is born as a blank slate composed of his/her genes and that those genes are selfish replicators.

Actually that isn't correct. A meme may be selfish but it may also be unselfish. Here is the definition from wiki:

quote:

---

A meme ( /ˈmiːm/; meem)[1]) is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.

---

I have agreed earlier that the concept comes after Paul, and that the term has several understandings. My understanding of the term isn't unique and comes from my understanding of the entire scripture and from basic reason apart from the scriptures as we see from Dawkins. I'm not looking at a parallel of Genesis and Dawkins. I am looking at the Scriptures and understand from them that we are born as essentially selfish beings but with the hope that we can rise above that. When I overlay Dawkins concepts of selfish genes which we can rise above, we can gain a clearer picture and understanding than we would have from Scripture alone.The Scriptural view and Dawkins' views aren't necessarily parallel but it is my contention that they are complimentary.

Circular reasoning at its finest.