Haarsma engages in a discussion of human evolution2H as if it does not intersect with original sin2V. Yet it does, otherwise Haarsma would not write a book about it.
Haarsma’s titular question2V, “When did sin begin?”, should place the hypothesis of the first singularity2H side by side with the doctrine of original sin2V.
But, since Haarsma is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity, the term, “human evolution”, goes into the slot for actuality2H for the normal context of natural change3H.
This does not work, of course, and leads to a winding path, back to the crucial intersection between the first singularity2Vand original sin2H.
0039 The path starts by asking, “What contributing actuality2V, in a theological framework3V, corresponds to human evolution, as Haarsma discusses the topic?”
The answer comes from Thomas Aquinas’s suggestion that original sin is the lack of original justice. Original justice is entangled with human evolution.
Figure 11
0040 If human evolution2H is one of the actualities in an intersection, the corresponding actuality is not original sin2H. The corresponding actuality is really the stuff of the Creation Story2V.
The structure of Haarsma’s text validates this suggestion.
Chapter four, titled, “Human Evolution”, is preceded by chapter three, “Suffering and Death Before Humans”, and followed by chapter five, “The Soul, the Imago Dei and Special Divine Action”. Chapters three and five point to Genesis 1:26-31.
0041 Chapter three asks about the phenomena of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Does natural evil exist? Do the characteristics of natural evil change at the start of our current Lebenswelt?
00428 The answer is yes, to both questions.
If the single actuality2 is our current Lebenswelt, then the natural transition3H entails leaving the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Genesis 2:4-11 provides no evidence for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Adam and Eve are depicted as ab initiocreations in the Garden of Eden.
0043 Does the Garden of Eden contain something that associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Well, it seems to me that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil associates to our current Lebenswelt.
Perhaps, the tree of life associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The idea pops up in Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) The Genesis of Good and Evil, appearing in the Razie Mah blog in January 2022.
0044 The tree of life is not in the middle of the Garden. It is somewhere in the Garden. Perhaps, it is everywhere in the Garden. This gives me a hint about the character of life in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
If the tree of life is anywhere, then it is everywhere. I can imagine a world where people are alive because they have access to the tree of life. I look at the life of the people of the Developed Neolithic (Genesis 1:29-31) and the Upper Paleolithic (Genesis 1:28), stretching back through the creation of man (Genesis 1:27) and even the intention of man (Genesis 1:26) and I wonder, “If the tree of life is a metaphor for living in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, then what would its roots and its branches be?”
Well, it must be ourselves, both dead and living.
0045 The tree of life is a metaphor for the creation of humans as the images of God.
Thomas Aquinas offers a term for the state of human nature before the Fall. That term is “original justice”.
What does this imply?
Theologians may one day speculate how the tree of life,the image of God, and original justice complement one another as metaphor, evocation and philosophical attribution.
But, for Haarsma’s intersection, these theological images2V belong to a single actuality along with the long course of human evolution2H.
0046 Here is a picture.
Figure 12
0047 Are we the tree of life? Or does the tree of life bring us all into relation?
The Australian Aborigines talk of dreamtime. Dreamtime brings us all into relation, dead and living. The North American Plains Indians dance in circles. Circles bring us all into relation, including the living and the dead. Is the tree of life similar to dreamtime and dance circles?
0048 Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big conveys the importance of social circles in human evolution. Hominins adapt to the realness of triadic relations within social circles, such as family and intimates (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150) and (eventually) mega-bands (500) and tribes (1500). Each social circle offers adaptive advantages to certain sets of triadic relations.
Natural evil always threatens. Social circles keep us alive. The tree of life is rooted in our ancestors. The tree of lifebranches into our social circles, moving from present into future.
0049 In chapter five, Haarsma lays our four common theological theories about the nature of the image of God.
0050 First, we are different from all other animals.
The reason?
Hominins adapt into a unique niche, the potential of triadic relations. We recognize signs as things in themselves. See Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind.
0051 Second, the pre-fallen state corresponds to original justice. One imago dei is willing to sacrifice and die for another imago dei. See Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) Aquinas, Original Sin and The Challenge of Evolution.
0052 Third, the imago dei points to a personal relation between God and humans. This implies that God defines the human niche.
0053 Fourth, the imago dei is commissioned to be God’s stewards of the rest of creation. This requires understanding, where understanding entails placing the actuality of creation2 into a normal context of stewardship3 as well as the potential of The One Who Brings All Into Relation1.
0050 In the past three blogs, I discuss how chapters three and five of Haarsma’s work, titled, “Suffering and Death Before Humans (er… Adam and Eve)” and “The Soul, the Imago Dei, and Special Divine Action”, stand on either side chapter four, titled, “Human Evolution”.
Here is a picture of the core of the intersection associated with chapter four.
Figure 14
0051 Chapters three, four and five constitute a pattern, C:D:C’.
Plus, these three chapters point to the Creation Story.
The Creation Story turns familiar conclusions around.
Since Adam and Eve are denied access to the tree of life, and since Paul says that sin and death enter the world with Adam’s transgression, then a believer may readily conclude that suffering and death do not occur before Adam and Eve.
The intersection of chapter four suggests otherwise. The Homo genus evolves in a world full of suffering and death. This is the world of the Creation Story. The imago dei is what we evolved to be.
0051 Chapter four (D) offers a natural history of human evolution.
Human evolution spans millions of years.
Chapter three and five (C, C’) discuss the implications of the theological narrative expressed in the Creation Story, which has the structure of an evolutionary sequence, and ends before the stories of Adam and Eve. The Creation Story contains the first creation of humans. The story of Adam and Eve depicts a second creation of humans.
The following two nested forms apply to before the stories of Adam and Eve.
Figure 15
0052 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in is the single actuality2 that contains both human evolution2 and the drama of the Creation Story2. Since suffering and death are part and parcel the scientific story of evolution, one cannot unite these two actualities without admitting that our hominin ancestors faced suffering and death. Today, we call this suffering and death, “natural evil”.
So, what describes the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
Unnatural evil?
It makes me wonder.
When Does Sin Begin?
0053 As discussed in the last blog, two metaphors stand on either side of the gap between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:4.
One is the intention, creation and blessing of humans as the imago dei, the image of God, discussed in chapter five (C’).
The other is the image of the tree of life (C).
The image of God in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, appears to us, in our current Lebenswelt, as the metaphor of the tree of life.
Even worse, the tree of life appears to be a plant that endows immortality, not life. The tree of life offers a perpetual lack of dying, which is a fairly nasty explicit abstraction from the image of God in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0054 The realness of human evolution (D) forces to admit that the imago dei (C’) is a creation capable of suffering and dying, not like any other animal, but like Jesus (C). Jesus does what humans evolved to do. Humans evolve to come into relation. Humans evolve to sacrifice for one another. Jesus dies for me. No friend is as great as one who lays down his life for another. The full range of self-giving is on display in our hominin ancestors. Every social circle calls for self-giving in different ways.
Haarsma calls adaptive hominin behaviors a mixture of nasty and nice. But, this appellation fails when we consider second-order affects, such as cowardice and courage.
0055 What is cowardice? What is courage?
They are spoken words.
0056 Our ancestors practice hand-talk and hand-speech talk. Our ancestors cannot picture or point to the abstractions, “cowardice” or “courage”. However, they can still see the behaviors of others, operating in moments of danger, and they can draw a judgment, a relation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’. That judgment becomes a conviction.
0057 The imago dei is an amazing and evocative term.
What does God do?
God the Son manifests heroism when facing suffering and death. God the Son gives His life for each one of us.
God the Father manifests a conviction that cannot be named in speech-alone words. The Father does not convey His judgment through abstractions. The Father posts his convictions in moments of revelation. Genesis 15:12 offers such a vision. A flame passes between split carcasses set out by Abram.
God the Holy Spirit is the Love emanating from The Person of Conviction to The Person Who Heroically Suffers.
This is what our ancestors image.
0058 The imago dei is not about a mixture of nasty and nice adaptive behaviors.
The imago dei is, from the point of view of our current Lebenswelt, calls to mind the metaphor of the tree of life. We are rooted in our willingness to suffer and die for one another. We are immovable in our standing with the one who brings us into relation. We branch out in our convictions to join one another for organizational objectives.
The imago dei and the tree of life are inherently relational.
But, these radically different metaphors for humanity between the Creation Story and the Primeval History indicate that human evolution passes through a singularity.
The imago dei and the tree of life are distinctly different.
0059 Ironically, many readers of Genesis 2:4-11 regard the fruit of the tree of life as a substance that confers immortality. Even the Lord God opines about the danger posed by a substance that provides immortality.
But, keep in mind, “immortality” is a spoken word.
0060 The above intersection makes me wonder.
God banishes the rebellious Adam and Eve from the Garden, lest they take and eat of the fruit of the tree of life.
Does the fruit of the tree of life represent immortality?
Or, does the fruit of the tree of life represent the inherent relationality that characterizes the constrained social complexityof the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,the image of God keep the images of God alive. Our ancestors adapt to a world that transcends the material. God sustains our dreamworld. God calls us into the circle-dance. God spins us into social circles. Circles, within circles, encompass the ones who died, the ones who live and the ones who are to come.
In sum, the traditions of our ancestors are timeless. Past, present and future are seamless. Yet, each one of them lives in the ever present now. There is no hand-speech word for the abstraction that we call “time”. Nor is there a hand-speech word for the explicit abstraction that we call, “immortality”.
What type of immortality does the tree of life represent?
Humans live for God and for one another, even before birth and after death.
0061 Chapter two is titled, “Creation, Evolution and Divine Action”.
Haarsma asks (more or less), “If the scientific evidence for human evolution is correct, then what does that imply about God’s action in intending, creating and blessing humans?”
I expand the query, asking, “If the scientific evidence for evolution is correct, then what does that imply about God’s creative action depicted in the first chapter of Genesis?”
0062 Obviously, the scientific evidence implies that God’s action in creating the world and humans is irrelevant.
I start with the evolution of the planet and life2H and the Creation Story2V.
The single actuality is the world.
The world includes the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Figure 16
This intersection between evolution2H and Genesis 12V is packed with accidental and essential contradictions. Theologians are capable of distinguishing essential from accidental.
For example, one essential contradiction is this: Each narrative presents a sequence of events in the realization of our world. But, each sequence is unique. How can a Genesis day be the same as an evolutionary epoch? Yet, the two sequences are drawn into a single actuality. They are stuck together in a mystery. I call that mystery, “the world”.
0064 Plus, there is a world within the world.
Genesis 1:26-31 portrays the intending, the creating, the blessing and the feeding of humans as well as the animals that humans keep. This implies that human evolution actually associates to our world, rather than our current Lebenswelt.
If I consider the intersection of all of evolution2H and the Genesis Creation Story2V, I arrive at configuration similar to the intersection of human evolution2H and Genesis 1:26-312V.
The single actuality is the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Figure 17
0066 Once these associations are made, then original sin2V binds to a twist in long-established trends in human evolution2H. Since this twist2H does not immediately alter prehistoric natural history or human genetics, the twist must be a cultural adaptation.
The single actuality is our current Lebenswelt.
Figure 18
0067 These intersections do not speak to us of dissonance, per se.
These intersections speak to us of mystery.
A mystery contains irreconcilable contradictions.
0068 One task of the theologian is to separate the accidental and the essential contradictions, in order to clarify the mystery. This is hard work. A mystery cannot be fully explained, partially explained or declared unexplainable. A mystery cannot be resolved by sensible construction. A mystery evokes social construction.
See the e-work, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0069 A mystery provides a message. The message is clear. A single realness coalesces from two disparate actualities. The two nested forms are bound. In this message of unity, the normal contexts and the potentials cannot be regarded as fully independent. Two nested forms bind into a mystery.
0105 Is the Lebenswelt that we evolved in a way to envision the Garden of Eden?
If so, then paradise is full of danger and opportunity. Paradise overflows with belonging. The human body co-evolves with a full range of social circles, intimates, family, teams, bands, community, mega-bands and tribes.
This is the core concept informing the discipline of gene-culture co-evolution. Each social circle offers opportunities and dangers. Hominins adapt to the offers by embracing the opportunities and ameliorating the dangers. In the long run, hominins adapt more and more to the triadic relations inherent in each social circle. Productive and coherent social circles increase reproductive success.
0106 This is our our ancestor’s legacy.
We evolve as images of God. God is relational, actual and potential. From time immemorial, our hominin ancestors take up their suffering as servants to one another. They become more aware of The One Who Signs Nature. God “hand talks” nature, just as our own manual-brachial word gestures image and indicate natural things.
We innately anticipate growing up in a world of social circles, embracing the living, revering the dead, anticipating the ones to come, circles within circles, even including the plants and animals and landscape and the One Who Gives Without Us Knowing Why.
We learn to read nature as the hand-talk of God.See the e-masterwork, The Human Niche.
0112 Two nested forms intersect for our current Lebenswelt.
A theological transition3V brings the doctrine of original sin2V into relation with the noumenal potential of Genesis 2:4-111V.
A natural transition3H brings a twist in human evolution2H into relation with the phenomenal potential of an adaptive cultural change1H.
0113 The twist in human evolution2H is described in the hypothesis of the first singularity.
Here is a synopsis.
Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk. Speech talk is added to hand talk with the appearance of anatomically modern humans (over 200,000 years ago). Hand-speech talk is practiced through the Paleolithic and into the Neolithic. The semiotic qualities of hand-speech talk favor constrained social complexity.
The first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia (starting around 7,800 years ago). At the time, all other Neolithic, Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic cultures practice hand-speech talk. Because the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk unconstrains social complexity, labor and social specialization prospers during the Ubaid. The surrounding (hand-speech talking) cultures see it. The Ubaid exhibits increasing wealth and power. Plus, all the surrounding cultures need to do, in order to imitate the Ubaid, is to drop the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talk.
Speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid through imitation.
0114 The twist in human evolution2H permits increasing labor and social complexity1H.
But, the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk also makes the cultural adaptations of the Lebenswelt that we evolved innonsensical.
Even though we innately expect our (hand talk) words to image and point to their referents, in our current Lebenswelt, we project meaning, presence and message into our (spoken) words, then construct artifacts that validate those projections.
How can a tradition in hand-speech talk be translated into speech-alone talk?
0001 Chris Sinha, writing from Hunan University, publishes another article on human evolution. The journal is Interaction Studies (volume 19(2), 2018, pages 239-255). The complete title is “Praxis, Symbol and Language: Developmental, Ecological and Linguistic Issues”.
The title of Razie Mah’s commentary is Comments on Chris Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbol and Language”. The commentary is found at the smashwords website under the series: Buttressing the Human Niche. Other vendors also sell the e-commentary.
0002 This blog complements the commentary.
0003 Sinha’s article covers from the start of the Homo genus, around two million years ago, to the speciation of Homo sapiens, around two-hundred thousand years ago. That is a lot of territory.
Several issues intertwine. One is individual development (devo). Another is a transition in natural selection (evo) from ecology-driven adaptations (eco) to adaptations driven by social interactions (socio).
0004 Sinha loves terminology. He searches for a EcoEvoDevoSocio framework.
0005 What about Sinha’s EcoEvoDevoSocio framework?
0006 The outer terms, “eco” and “socio”, signify a broad arc of human evolution.
Adaptation by a line of apes starts with ecological adaptations. For example, bipedalism is evolutionarily ancient.
However, the fact that bipedalism frees the hands for communicative gestures creates new opportunities. A truly human niche appears. One hominin can intentionally gesture to another. The other hominin can interpret that gesture.
0007 The frontpiece of the title captures Sinha’s EcoSocio vision. The praxis (or habits) of intentional manual-brachial gestures for communication proceeds from signaling to functional representation.
Functional representation metaphorically runs around the symbol, defined as a sign-relation whose sign-object depends on conventions, habits, laws and so forth. The more that intentional manual-brachial gestures act as words, the more symbolic they become.
In this way, hominins become symbol-ready and capable of engaging in language.
0008 Allow me to further elaborate Sinha’s EcoEvoDevoSocio framework.
In the prior blog, the Eco-Socio bookends touch base with the title frontpiece of praxis, symbol and language.
0009 This implies that the EvoDevo inner coupling expresses the title endpiece of developmental, ecological and linguistic issues.
0010 Evo associates to phylogeny. Phylogenesis consists of adaptations into a niche. The human niche changes from one where ecology is the primary source of signification to one where symbol-ready hominins are the primary sources of signification.
Devo associates to ontogeny. Ontogenesis consists of alterations in DNA, genes, genotypes and phenotypes that permit the drastic shift in the primary source of signification.
0011 Sinha cleverly encapsulates the inner drama of phylogenic and ontogenic changes over evolutionary time(EvoDevo) within the outward motion from an ecology-centered Umwelt to a socially-centered Lebenswelt (Eco-Socio).
