No need for redemption?

Michael Aus is apparently someone who has gone from fundamentalist Christian to fundamentalist Atheist. He has convinced himself that acceptance of evolution must entail a denial of Christianity. Here is the argument that has apparently convinced him:

“Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example.
“If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homosapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible.
“So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race.
“The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.
“…If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless.”

Ah yes, but this is such one-dimensional thinking.

Let’s take that last point first.

Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless.”

And why was that?

no need for redemption

Oh really? That’s not what empirical reality tells me. Look at it this way. Atheists and theists agree suffering occurs. In fact, atheists use this suffering as the primary fuel for their Argument From Evil. God, they say, cannot exist because His existence is incompatible with the existence of so much evil.

But here’s the thing. Empirical reality shows me that the greatest source of evil, the greatest cause of evil, is humanity. Humans suffer so much largely because of other humans. Do I really need to explore the reality of human suffering as a consequence of other humans? Do I really need to remind you that as you sit there reading this, countless people are being killed, tortured, enslaved, abused, raped, and tormented by other humans. Do I need to remind you of the various forms of emotional and psychological pain that exists because of other humans? And I am quite confident that if you, dear reader, are suffering, perhaps even in silence, your suffering comes from interactions with another human.

Clearly, given that humans are the greatest source of evil, it seems rather silly to maintain they are not in need of redemption.

Christianity teaches that all have sinned and that we are all sinners. So first things first. How does the non-existence of Adam and Eve change this reality?

So Michael, but your whole argument just derailed. Something called “empirical reality” got in the way.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Christianity, Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to No need for redemption?

  1. And who, according to theists, created people that way? Bingo. So do you want redemption from the guy who is responsible for all the evil in the first place? Nope. So, no need for redemption there, at least not from that imaginary evil genocidal big brother monster some people call “god”.

  2. Michael says:

    I understand your need to quickly change the topic. But try addressing it. Are humans in need of redemption?

  3. Sorry, I thought my answer made that clear, but to put it in simpler words: No.
    Of course, as you neglected to define “redemption” in any meaningful way before using it, that answer is as useful to you as your text was to me.

  4. Michael says:

    Sorry, I thought my answer made that clear, but to put it in simpler words: No.

    That’s not the reality I experience. Do you deny that humans are the greatest cause/source of evil and suffering? Or is it that you just don’t care?

    Of course, as you neglected to define “redemption” in any meaningful way before using it, that answer is as useful to you as your text was to me.

    There is a book out there….called “The Dictionary.”

  5. Crude says:

    The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.

    People who say this sort of thing always forget that humanity’s ‘sinless state’, even by strict biblical literalism, was an eyeblink. Not even a generation passed. Hell, it wasn’t even more than two people.

    The fallen status of humanity is obvious, as is the need for redemption. That part isn’t problematic. Aus’ understanding of both christianity and evolution leaves a lot to be desired.

  6. chunkdz says:

    Parasitic wasps.

  7. James says:

    And come on, Hitler was a Christian ! It doesn’t matter that he behaved nothing like Christ was attested to have lived. It doesn’t matter that he was merely pandering to a spineless church with his talk of “God”. It doesn’t matter that he was actually anti-Christian ! He called himself a Christian once, and that’s all the proof you need ! Guilty, guilty, guilty !

    Such are the thought patterns of Gnus like Atomic Mutant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s