Losing Eden
I'm currently revisiting an absolutely fantastic book - Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond. It won a Pulitzer Prize back in 1998.
Essentially, Diamond presents a sort of "grand unified theory" to explain why human societies developed in such a way that European and Asian civilizations came to dominate the planet's resources. In the process, he debunks the notion that Europeans or Asians had any inherent biological or intellectual advantage, arguing instead that their societies hit the geographical jackpot in regard to the availability of domesticable plant and animal species. Domestication led to efficient food production, which led in turn to the establishment of villages, population growth and centralization, labor specialization, and (most importantly) to the availability of time for the development of knowledge. Population centers thus permitted both the development of technology and hereditary resistance to diseases. As a result, when European and Asian societies came into contact with populations that lacked either the resources or the time to develop equivalent technologies or immunities of their own, the invaders swiftly dominated the natives. The resulting world is one in which the European and Asian civilizations have largely controlled the course of history.
As Diamond demonstrates in his book, the archaological and genetic record of humanity's development suggests very strongly that humanity originated somewhere in Africa roughly seven million years ago and started to explore the rest of the world about one million years ago. The record further suggests that about fifty thousand years ago humans that were nearly genetically and intellectually identical to modern-day humans - the ancestors of every person alive today - made their first foray out of Africa. Agriculture, or the systematic development and growth of plants for the purpose of a later harvest, originated about eleven thousand years ago in the Middle East's "Fertile Crescent" and arose independently in several locations all over the globe over the next five or six thousand years. Animal domestication (not counting dogs) followed fairly close on the heels of plant domestication.
Three years ago, when I was first reading this book, I had an epiphany. If the knowledge we have gained from archaeological and genetic records is accurate, the Garden of Eden as described in the book of Genesis never existed. Intellectually, I had accepted this possibility long before - my faith in God does not hinge on the factual inerrancy of the Bible, and particularly not the stories of the Old Testament. But what really rocked me - as I was listening to a sermon - was the realization that so much of the traditional understanding of Christian theology hinges on the Garden of Eden. We think of God's relationship with humanity as following a certain story arch - humanity was created in a state of perfection and harmony with both God and Nature; Satanic temptation and human disobedience destroyed Eden, introducing sin, toil, and suffering and requring sacrifice to restore the relationship between God and humanity; God provided the bridge for reconciliation via Jesus' death on the cross; the rest of human history will be the story of how that reconciliation is finally realized in Christ's return, in effect restoring everything to the state of perfection that existed in Eden.
So what happens to the traditional Christian story if Eden never existed? Does our understanding of God's relationship to us change if humanity had always been forced to struggle for survival in the wilderness? What might it mean for the idea of sin and redemption if there never was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Should our understanding of a heavenly paradise change if we acknowledge that earth has never known such a paradise? Over the past several years I've come to my own answers on these questions. I'll share them on this blog, but for now I'm more interested to hear what y'all think.
-----------------------------------------------
[ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, ADDED 7/30/2005]
I posed the above questions with the promise that I'd share my own answers, so here you go...
Shayna hit at one of the first issues raised: What might it mean to be "made in God's image" if we [as humans] were not introduced to Creation in our modern-day form the way that Genesis describes it? I agree wholeheartedly that humanity's relationship to God's image is bound up entirely with our existence as spiritual beings. I believe that humanity, despite the fact that we are animals in almost every way similar to those that surround us, has been specially called by God, given souls and consciences so that we can transcend the mere primal instinct that dictates the lives of all other animals. That is what sets us apart as existing specially in God's image and in a special, unique relationship with our Creator.
But what if there was no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? How did our relationship with God get off track in the first place? Sin was introduced into the world not when Adam and Eve bit into a piece of fruit, but the first time that a human understood how God expected them to live and made a conscious decision to act contrary to God's expectation. Whether or not Eden was a literal place, sin - our state of disobedience - is still what separates us from God. And, as Carl pointed out, Jesus is absolutely fundamental in human history because his life provides a model of blameless, sanctified living to which we all should aspire, and his death represents an atoning sacrifice that enables reconciliation between God and humanity. [As an aside, I'll add that I absolutely reject the notion of "Original Sin", which states that all humans enter the world with the taint of Adam and Eve's transgression, so that no one has any hope of salvation apart from Jesus. To the contrary (and true to my "Pelagius" moniker), I believe that people are solely responsible for our own sins and that we become accountable to God by choosing to depart from the loving, compassionate, selfless life to which we are all called. I'll probably post more on this line of thought some time down the road.]
As for the final question I posed above, my answer relates to the observation that our spiritual self is what is made in God's image. Many of the Bible's images of heaven are described in ways that suggest they are physical and tangible. I can't think this is really accurate. Just as God transcends physicality, I think that once we have died, our own spirits will not be bound or related to the physical world that we now live in. Granted, I have absolutely nothing with which to back up this perspective - it's just my opinion based on a lot of thought about the matter. I'd definitely be interested to hear from y'all, whether you agree or disagree.
posted by Pelagius @ 4:56 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Here's my two cents for what it's worth and all that jazz. What if the garden of eden is figurative. What if before we come to earth as human beings, we exist is a perfect spirit world with God and we decided one day to go to Earth and play human.
My thought is that God created us in His image. This does not mean in the image of human. If this was true, Jesus wouldn't have had to assume human form. So what form is God? God is spirit. So as spirit we exist in a state of perfection and as man we are imperfect.
I know a guy who feels that the entire book of Genesis is just stories told by Moses to establish the begining of mankind and how things are the way they are. Not quite sure I accept that, but its interesting.
I'm not sure if I have a problem with the Garden of Eden existing or not. I can rationalize on both sides. I do think Jesus needed to come for a couple reasons though. 1)to provide an example for us sinners. 2)provide a method of salvation. 3)God came/comes in the spirit form as well in the holy spirit.
My head hurts now..that is all.
I just realized though that my post may support the idea of original sin.
There are many creation stories out there... Genesis just happens to contain the Christian version. The Garden of Eden works as a way to explain man's situation. Though man does not know everything, it doesn't stop us from trying to explain the world as we perceive it. I've never given much credence to some of the OT's stories. It's the Bible's spiritual message that's important, not its literal truth.
the credence in the above post... I'm refering the literal truth I later note.
Could go off on a tangent but... self-restraint...
I'm afraid I don't quite follow the leap of logic; Genetic information dictates that our ancestors were nearly identical seven million years ago in Africa. How does this relate to the existance of the Garden? If were created as we are now, then perhaps 7x10^6 years ago in Africa is when and where Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden.
I used to be of the opinion that the Garden of Eden was a metaphore, but now I'm not so sure; it's not really treated like one in the bible. The beginning of Genesis chapter five basically consists of detailing the line of decendents between Adam and Noah; it provides detailed enough information to figure out how much time there was between creation and destruction; not something you'd do for a simple story.
-Gordon Willis
I'll respond to Gordon's point here, but look back to the main post for my further comments on this matter.
Genetic evidence actually suggests that modern humans (i.e., folks with essentially the same physical and intellectual characteristics as you and myself) emerged in Africa only 50,000 years ago. Humanity, as a species distinct from other primates, appeared about seven million years ago. The question in my mind isn't so much a matter of the timing or whether there might be one male and one female whose children gave rise to everyone alive today. The point is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there ever existed an Edenic setting. They lived out in the wilderness, where the world was harsh and cruel and they had to struggle for their very survival. That's not at all compatible with the Genesis account, with its image of a divinely tended garden and no threat of predators.
Beyond that, I also think that the geneologies and the chronology associated with them are of little to no value. While it is very possible that there were actual people associated with the names that are listed in the geneologies, we can be scientifically certain (although some will definitely argue that science might be mistaken...) that the listed people didn't live for eight and nine hundred years. More than anything else, I think that the supernatural longevity of the humans in the geneologies demonstrates the mythical aspect of the Creation and Noah accounts. Sure, it's theoretically possible that God peculiarly blessed these folks with such extraordinary lifespans. But there is absolutely no empirical evidence that would support that claim. In the absence of any empirical evidence, I'm not inclined to treat these stories has historically accurate.
The bigger question, which is what I tried to hit at with this post, is why it should matter whether these accounts are historically factual or not. Would your understanding of God and/or Christianity change if they were not historically factual? Why or why not?
I think the streets of gold, pearly gates, etc are ways for the author to convey what a wonderful place heaven is.
If the author had instead said, "it will be great becuase you'll just be able to be with God" it wouldn't have really conveyed the same impact. As humans we need tangible items to relate to. Teachers use manipulatives to help their students relate a concept to their own level. I think the author does the same here.
I have trouble taking science as an always absolute. We are constantly learning new things everyday. The garden could have existed (even though it possibly may not have) even if science says it can't.
I'll think I'll keep thinking like that until science finds a way to cure blindness with some mud and spit.
I think I have a point somewhere in there..probably not though.
Allow me to clarify...
In no way do I mean to suggest that God does not act in Creation through supernatural means. I completely accept the possibility of miracles. However, if a miracle occurs, it does not occur in a historical vaccuum - it will be assumed to have left some sort of record of its happening. In many cases - particularly with Jesus' miracles - they happened on such a small scale that there's really no hope that archaeology could ever find the evidence that would support the events.
The Old Testament stories, however, are an entirely different matter. Where the Bible says that civilizations existed with people living to be eight- and nine hundred years old, or where it says that there was a global flood six thousand or so years ago... there's a reasonable expectation that archaeology, geology, genetic research, etc., would find evidence of these things. Despite the claims of some people who have dedicated themselves to proving the Bible's accounts, I have not seen any credible scientific research that backs up these supposedly historical events.
Now, what should we do with science? I don't pretend to claim that science is infallible. It does, however, provide a mechanism through which we can actually test its claims for validity. We can run experiments that will either tend to support or discount the likelihood of any given scientific proposition, and from those results we can make highly accurate predictions about how the world functions. While there are those (even some who have commented on this post) who will argue that science and the conclusions reached by the application of scientific study are only theoretical, at some point theory must be accepted as having a significant measure of factual validity if it can consistantly and correctly explain the physical world's mechanations (think about the laws of physics, etc., which I strongly believe to have been simply another aspect of God's Creation) and predict its future (as science can do with all sorts of physical phenomena).
So, to sum up, I do not discount the idea that God can and does work miraculously in the world. I do discount the idea that God would do so, then remove all traces of that activity. If I'm forced to choose between believing a Biblical story that says that things were a certain way and scientifically-based discoveries that say that the Bible's account should not be understood as a literal, historical event, I think it more likely that the authors of the Bible (with their limited understanding of how the world around them functioned) are less likely to have the historically accurate claim.
My knowledge of the bible and of such matters is lacking compared to others reading this, so if I err on anything spiritual in this comment, please do not hesitate to correct.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that everything described in the OT not only is meant to be taken literally, but is also a correct translation of everything that happened. Please don't ask how the sun and moon could be created in a day when a "day" is based on the earth's revolution around the sun, that's irrelevant :).
Now then, one definition of "Faith" is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." It is my understanding that we are to have faith in God. Now then, how would it be possible to have faith in God if we have definitive proof of his existance? We can't exactly make the decision for ourselves if we can look up his phone number, if you'll allow the refrence. Hence, the evedance (except for savory possibilities, such as possible proof of Noah's flood and arc, plus the possible remains of the Tower of Babble) was removed, not only to protect the capacity of faith, but also as a test of it. The early Christians had to face being called mystics until around 80 AD, and the same holds true today about Creationists. But that, of course, is all theory.
"They lived out in the wilderness, where the world was harsh and cruel and they had to struggle for their very survival."
As depicted once they were thrown out of Eden; perhaps the scientific term for Eden is "Pangea" (look up plate tectonics) if you'd really like to dig around for metaphores .
In regards to the longevity of the earliest generations: Hypothetically, Adam and Eve were constructed perfectly in their human form. Now then, every generation since then would have to be a generation away from that physical perfection; genes, DNA, and various other things would eventually deteriate due to entropy, until we reached the state we've been at for that last few thousand years.
These are all rather far-out and unlikely theories, and even I am loathe to entertain them. However, regarding the true subject at hand, "How would the falsehood of Creation effect your relationship with God?"
On one hand, you might be completly right; it's the message behind the story that matters, not the story itself. The history is kept regardless of how it's actually presented. But it does make one wonder; if the first thing a book has to say turns out to be not what it appears, with how much confidence should the rest of the text be placed? An argument I disagree with, but one that I would have trouble delecting in open debate. Far from impossible, but the rebuttle would certainly seem shaky.
-Gordon Willis
Post a Comment
<< Home