竞争还是和谐?奥古斯丁/改革宗传统中的进化论和原罪

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Manuscrito Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.mb
Marcelo Cabral
{"title":"竞争还是和谐?奥古斯丁/改革宗传统中的进化论和原罪","authors":"Marcelo Cabral","doi":"10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.mb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The complex relations between Christianity and science seem to present a critical point in evolutionary theory, especially for the challenges it poses to the doctrine of original sin. I investigate the precise senses in which evolution threatens (or not) the Augustinian/Reformed formulation of original sin, analyzing each of the six tenets of the doctrine vis a vis nine evolutionary claims, as well as the supposed clash between the narratives of evolution and Christianity. I show that the threat is less impressive than it is usually assumed, and I highlight where the conflict really lies. I defend that it is possible to remain faithful to the core of the doctrine of original sin and to accept the reliability of evolution as a scientific t heory. I present three scenarios for “Adam and Eve” and interpret them using two different models. I favor the understanding of Adam and Eve as the whole initial human bottleneck viewed through the lens of a multilevel model.","PeriodicalId":42903,"journal":{"name":"Manuscrito","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPETING OR HARMONIC? EVOLUTION AND ORIGINAL SIN IN THE AUGUSTINIAN/REFORMED TRADITION\",\"authors\":\"Marcelo Cabral\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.mb\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": The complex relations between Christianity and science seem to present a critical point in evolutionary theory, especially for the challenges it poses to the doctrine of original sin. I investigate the precise senses in which evolution threatens (or not) the Augustinian/Reformed formulation of original sin, analyzing each of the six tenets of the doctrine vis a vis nine evolutionary claims, as well as the supposed clash between the narratives of evolution and Christianity. I show that the threat is less impressive than it is usually assumed, and I highlight where the conflict really lies. I defend that it is possible to remain faithful to the core of the doctrine of original sin and to accept the reliability of evolution as a scientific t heory. I present three scenarios for “Adam and Eve” and interpret them using two different models. I favor the understanding of Adam and Eve as the whole initial human bottleneck viewed through the lens of a multilevel model.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Manuscrito\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Manuscrito\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.mb\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuscrito","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.mb","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前位置基督教和科学之间的复杂关系似乎是进化论的一个关键点,尤其是它对原罪学说提出的挑战。我调查了进化论威胁(或不威胁)奥古斯丁/改革宗对原罪的表述的确切意义,分析了该教义的6条原则与9条进化论主张的每一条,以及进化论叙述与基督教之间的所谓冲突。我指出,这种威胁并不像人们通常认为的那样令人印象深刻,我还强调了冲突的真正所在。我认为,保持对原罪学说核心的忠诚,并接受进化论作为一种科学理论的可靠性,是可能的。我提出了“亚当和夏娃”的三种场景,并用两种不同的模型来解释它们。我倾向于将亚当和夏娃理解为通过多层次模型的视角来看待整个最初的人类瓶颈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COMPETING OR HARMONIC? EVOLUTION AND ORIGINAL SIN IN THE AUGUSTINIAN/REFORMED TRADITION
: The complex relations between Christianity and science seem to present a critical point in evolutionary theory, especially for the challenges it poses to the doctrine of original sin. I investigate the precise senses in which evolution threatens (or not) the Augustinian/Reformed formulation of original sin, analyzing each of the six tenets of the doctrine vis a vis nine evolutionary claims, as well as the supposed clash between the narratives of evolution and Christianity. I show that the threat is less impressive than it is usually assumed, and I highlight where the conflict really lies. I defend that it is possible to remain faithful to the core of the doctrine of original sin and to accept the reliability of evolution as a scientific t heory. I present three scenarios for “Adam and Eve” and interpret them using two different models. I favor the understanding of Adam and Eve as the whole initial human bottleneck viewed through the lens of a multilevel model.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Manuscrito
Manuscrito PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
“Believing at will is possible”−or is it? Some remarks on Peels’s “truth depends on belief” cases and voluntariness THE STATUS OF ARGUMENTS IN ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS. A TABLEAUX METHOD ON THE ALLEGED ERROR OF FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO NORMATIVE ERROR THEORY Korsgaard's Expanded Regress Argument The Definition and Typological Model of a Dogwhistle
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1