Reviews for Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution

The average rating for Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-05-18 00:00:00 William Deville 4/10 This is a poor, heterodox, ultimately failed take on original sin (and I'm an evolutionist) that's all mixed up with denial of the atonement, denial of omnipotence, process theology, Teilhardism, Matthew Foxian 'creational spirituality', libertarian free will, and other debris of 'progressive' 'theology'. The denial of the atonement seems to follow the denial of the traditional view of original sin, since Williams (Doing Without Adam and Eve), Haught, and all the other evolutionary theologians do it as well. I'm still seeking a reconciliation, and think my sad sketch is better than any I'm aware of in print. The argument of the book boils down to 'process theology + open theism + libertarian free will = explains and justifies evil and sin because God literally can not do any better'. The author denies divine omnipotence and omniscience in the way of open theists, while claiming God is a maximal perfect being because the future is unknowable as a circle has 270 degrees, while omnipotence is bound by arbitrary paradoxes created by the author, such as that a special-creation universe can't be distinct from the creator but an evolutionary one is (this is asserted multiple times but never argued, and is illogical. The number of steps in the chain from the beginning until now is irrelevant to the divide between the Infinite and the Finite.). However, the author has several good points and does a great service in blasting the cultural-transmission theory of 'original sin' to pieces. The cultural-transmission theory was begotten by and further begets SJWs, and claims original sin is solely generated by and defined as the 'cultural matrix of prejudice and oppression' we're born in to. Obviously, this school is deathly allergic to sociobiology or genetics of any sort. It also is fully Pelagian, but whether its Pelagianism or its Social Justice is the greater heresy is indeterminate. The author does an EXCELLENT job of showing the necessity of natural 'evil' and animal suffering and death if God chooses to create an evolutionary world (or even any dynamic world), and shows, in my opinion conclusively, that natural 'evil' and the supposed suffering and wastefulness of evolution are illusory problems caused by a misframing of the question. Sadly, Domning (Hellwig wrote maybe 10 pages of the book) basically puts all of the good parts of religion under evolution, and then tries to use religion to negate evolution by the opposition of 'original selfishness' (evolutionarily adaptive behavior) and 'religious virtue' (dysgenic, maladaptive, hate-thy-ingroup, love-thy-refugee, and it bears repeating, dysgenic behavior). Maybe it would convert a Leftist to his brand of liberal 'Catholicism', but if I bought it in full it would tend towards converting this Catholic to materialist evolutionism, since he locates all of the orthodoxy in the evolution and all of the a Leftism and liberal theology in the religion. Not to mention the table-pounding for the mythical libertarian free will (see Pereboom, etc.) on virtually every page, facilely invoked as an explanation for everything the author can't explain (quite a lot). Libertarian free will is the ultimate handwavium and is used to its fullest extent by Domning, in a near-parody of 'it's a mystery, my child' religious explanations. I'm letting Doming off easy for not being a trained theologian, too. The go-to book on the Fall in an evolutionary world remains Hud Hudson's The Fall and Hypertime, which, ironically, is explicitly philosophical, less religious, but still manages to maintain more of the worldview, doctrine, and feeling of true religion than his competitors. His work is also much more rigorous (formal logic and syllogisms with presuppositions clearly stated).

Review # 2 was written on 2020-04-16 00:00:00 Thomas Dinges Interesting It was a very interesting read. I don't necessarily agree with the author, but I'm glad that he was able to share some of the scientific side of original sin.