A theist’s critique of Todangst’s “Original Sin” essay.
Offline On another site someone asked about the original sin, which was the perfect opportunity to refer to Todangst essay: The “Fall” commits an internal contradiction.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction
A theists responded… here's there’s their attempted critique.
1) If adam and eve had knowledge of good and evil, then why did god forbid them knowledge of good and evil?
2) How can one do right or wrong, if they don't understand the moral implications of their actions? Are babies immoral when they take something that doesn't belong to them? Is a dog immoral for eating a steak I left out on the counter?
In answer to #2, I believe that there is no moral guilt or moral lapse without a choice that involves an understanding of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in a given situation. This is very close to your understanding, with one subtle variation: I don't believe moral guilt requires exhaustive knowledge of the consequences of one's choices.
In answer to #1 above, you have committed the logical fallacy of changing the definition and use of a word in the middle of your argument (in this case, the word 'knowledge'. The fact that God commanded, "DO NOT...." was enough information to give an understanding that eating the fruit would be 'wrong' (i.e., disobedient, therefore immoral, and evil). At this point, Adam and Eve would have sufficient understanding to incur moral guilt when they disobeyed the commandment. But they still had no 'knowledge' of good and evil in the sense that the word is used in Scripture (remember that this passage was written in Hebrew, not 21st century English). The term used in the Bible, describing how Adam and Eve would 'know' good and evil, does NOT refer to a passing acquaintance or even a clear understanding. It refers to a deep and intimate relationship through personal experience: it is the same word used to describe how Adam 'knew' Eve (and then little Cain was born).
Can you imagine a world where people only ever experienced good, rather than learning by trial and error, triumph and heartbreak, the intimate details, pains, and consequences of evil? THAT is the difference depicted by the fall of Mankind and the 'original sin' of Adam.
Theist's second reply:
1) If adam and eve had knowledge of good and evil, then why did god forbid them knowledge of good and evil?
In other words, why did god stop Adam and Eve from having knowledge of good and evil, when they already had knowledge of good and evil.
Please demonstrate how each use of the word ‘knowledge’ is different (a fallacy).
Please allow me to re-write it this way:
- If adam and eve had a). knowledge of good and evil, then why did god forbid them b). knowledge of good and evil?
In the first half of the sentence (case a).) Adam and Eve did NOT have knowledge of good and evil. The Bible does not say they had knowledge of good and evil. This phrase was added at this point by the writer of the Internet post. They had an understanding of who God was and their relationship to Him. They did not understand all the consequences of disobeying, but they didn't have to understand all the consequences. They were presented with a simple choice: who was more important to them: God, or Self?
In case b). above, God used the phrase 'knowledge of good and evil". This phrase IS taken directly from Scripture. But the word in Hebrew does NOT mean an understanding of, or an idea about, something. It specifically refers to the kind of personal, intimate experience that a husband enjoys with his wife in married love. (read between the lines, guys - there are children on this forum). This kind of knowledge of good and evil could only be known by living in evil and personally, intimately becoming acquainted with the consequences.
Example: I 'know' (in the vernacular English sense used in a).) that taking drugs is wrong. However, if I took drugs, became addicted, went to jail, and lost my job, my health, and my family because of it, then I would 'know' in the Biblical sense used in b). ) that taking drugs was wrong. I can (and have) made a moral choice not to use drugs based on a.) alone. Adam and Eve could have made a moral decision to choose God over self as well, even without the b.) type of knowledge of the consequences.
Did that get my point/thought across?
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Well, I'm not going to go point by point through this, because I'm sure todangst will enjoy defending himself. However, I'd like to point out theist error #4, commonly known as...
PROJECTION!
This is where the theist accuses the atheist of doing exactly what the theist is doing.
Observe:
Theist:
Ok... so let's see how Todangst has used two definitions.
So, god gave Adam and Eve the understanding (KNOWLEDGE!) that eating the fruit was wrong... before they ate the fruit.
At this point, Adam and Eve had sufficient KNOWLEDGE to incur moral guilt, yada yada yada.
Ohhh.... I get it...
God, a being that they could see and interact with, who walked with them in the garden, used his voice to tell them something about the tree. He gave them empirical evidence that the tree existed, by showing it to them. He gave them explicit instructions, and told them that there was a consequence for disobedience.
Yet, they had no knowledge, because knowledge doesn't mean knowledge that way. It means knowledge like Adam screwing Eve.
Yeah.
Way to go theist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And, just to head the next objection off at the pass...
The only way to justify this dichotomy is to say that once Adam and Eve sinned, they had intimate knowledge of sin. This is a self evident truth, hardly worth mentioning, but we can run with it for a second.
So, the theist here must insist that god is making the distinction between experiential knowledge and what? Being told that a thing exists is experiencing an event. Do we really want to go down this road and try to say that todangst's error is in not categorizing tactile, first hand direct experience as separate from first hand, tactile understanding through symbols?
If this is true, then the story of the forbidden fruit becomes even more ridiculous, because god set Adam and Eve up even worse. They already had knowledge of good and evil, but god put this fruit in the garden so that they could commit evil, and thereby have intimate knowledge of the act of evil, and as a result, die. The kicker? Adam and Eve would be no wiser for it, and it wouldn't be for another six thousand years that someone would develop enough philosophical wisdom to see that god was splitting hairs over direct vs. symbolic experience.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Let's take a look
But you do concede that the require an understanding of the moral ramifications - i.e. right and wrong. And Adam and Eve had NO such knowledge, they were specifically created without it, and specifically denied it. So I don't see how you're 'answering' number 2 here.
Actually, it's impossible for me to commit this fallacy here, as I am referring to any type of knowledge of good and evil at all, in any sense. If they had moral knowledge in any sense, they'd have the basis for moral knowledge.
This is a basic blunder that my essay specifically deals with - to sin requires intent. Saying "No, don't do that!" is enough to let you know that a person doesn't want you to do something, but if you do not have any MORAL understanding, then you cannot grasp the MORAL ramifications of disobeying. And that is REQUIRED for sin.
Disobeying without intent cannot be immoral.
The problem here is that it is very difficult to imagine an adult without knowledge of right and wrong, but this is precisely what the adam and eve characters were like.This is the stock reply from christians to my essay, but I've already predicted and defeated this response in the essay.
The book of genesis specifically states that Adam and Eve were denied knowledge of good and evil, period. If a person has 'some' knowledge of good and evil, then they have the basis for grasping good and evil on their own, just like children eventually come to grasp morality.
You can't have Adam and Eve having 'some knowledge' when the bible declares they are without it.
Again:
3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
It's made very clear here that they only learn good and evil here, after the eating, and that prior to this, they were complete innocents, i.e. like infants who can't even grasp that they are naked in a moral sense.
To those who still are in denial. the "god" character in the story makes it painfully clear that the knowledge of good and evil came after eating the fruit:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, AND TAKE ALSO of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Why should I demonstrate that, when that's the opposite intention of my point?
Right. That's my point. The conditional above relates to theist claims, not my claim.
It expressly denies that they had it, agreed.
Sorry, this doesn't work. Sin requires intent, and if they don't have any understanding of the moral ramifications of disobeying, then they can't sin.
Please see my point sbove, related to genesis 3:7 and Genesis 3:22. It rules out any knowledge of good and evil, period.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
This was part of my post. I was asking the theist to demonstrate her assertion that you had commited the fallacy of equivocation with the word 'knowledge'.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
The bible itself agrees with Todagnst's original sin essay. James 4:17....
KJV - Jam 4:17 -
KJV - Jam 4:17 -
it] not, to
him it is sin. King James Version 1611, 1769
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
What this theist is saying about knowledge is easily refuted.
If what this theist claims about "knowledge of good an evil" is true, then according to Gen. 3:22 God has has lived/is living "in evil" and is "personally, intimately becoming acquainted with the consequences." Unless the Bible is wrong about God not being evil, this is not the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil."
oooh... neat point rage.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Heh. I have them from time to time.
What our theist is saying about knowledge is true in general. There is a "know about" knowledge and "intimate" knowledge. Some languages, e.g. Spanish, even have different verbs for these types of knowledge. But it's clear that "the knowledge of good in evil" has to at least be the "know about" knowledge, if not both. But it has to be both because God has experienced doing good, according to the Bible.
Another point is, its the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve wouldn't have known it was good to listen to Gods commands. If the Fall gave us original Sin, it also gave us original Goodness. (The Adam and Eve myth is just a way of understanding why humans can do great things, and also do cruel things.) If God is good, why would he create humans without the knowledge of good? Wouldn't the Fall be, in a way, a good thing? It would allow us to understand God better.
ROFL
You're just full of good ideas today, aren't you!
I've been doing this so long, it's seldom that I hear something I've never considered, but honestly, most of my debates don't deal much with the creation story, since most apologists admit that it's a myth...er.... metaphor.
How very clever... didn't know good...
heheh
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, the repetitiveness is a bore.
The main reason I gave up Christianity is the creation story. Yes, most Christians reinterpret the first few chapters of Genesis as myth or allegory, or something. But most of Paul's theology rests on the first few chapters of Genesis. Take the creation story and the Fall away and you take away original sin. Why then did Jesus die? To me if you take the first three chapters of Genesis away, then all of Christianity vanishes with it. It's the one thing I agree with Answers in Gensis about.
I've always, even as an evangelical Christian, had trouble with the fall account. Some of these todangst covered, like why Adam and Eve shouldn't be held responsible. And why does God have to curse creation itself for what one man and woman did? Why would God not want us to know good and evil? The whole story is messed up. Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir.
The thing is, there are dozens of concepts in the bible that create internal contradictions, whether you take them literally or metaphorically. The genesis account is one of the most glaring. Of course, pointing this out doesn't do any good.
Probably the most infuriating thing about debating Christianity with theists is the consistency with which they dismiss internal contradictions by just saying, "It's not a contradiction," and then refusing to give a solid reason.
For instance... from another thread:
Theist:
God didn't tell them not to eat of the tree; {of knowledge in the garden of eden}
Me:
Quoting the bible: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
Theist:
I know what you are saying however you are coming from the wrong angle. You are assuming that God gave an order to Adam. He did not.
Seriously, how do you debate that? What can you possibly say when someone is looking at a big rock and says, "It's not a rock."
There is no debate from that point, so the theist throws a ticker tape parade and marches back to his church, claiming victory because he got the last word in.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The fatal problem with a hefty chunk of the Bible is, of course, the internal contradictions, which render a hefty chunk of the Bible, false.
It doesn't matter whether you take an account literally or allegorically. There mere fact you concede something is myth or allegorical doesn’t remove the contradiction. You just transport a necessarily incorrect literal account into a necessarily incorrect allegorical account.
Nail. Hammer. Bang.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
James 4:17 says "Therefore, to one who knows {the} right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." which backs up the fact of Roman's 7:7. In order for one to know the good to do, one must have a Law that explains what NOT to do.
Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through one man man (assumed as Adam). Death entered into existence through sin, which man allowed in. If death is a consequence, a penalty "imputed", and Romans 5:13 says "...sin is not imputed when there is no Law", and the Law came with Moses, then how did death reign from Adam until Moses?
In order for a behavior to be a sin, does the sinner have to have the intent of breaking a Law (James 4:17)? Or can one sin in ignorance?
Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil UNTIL they ate the fruit thereof: "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil..." Gen 3:22. How Did Adam know good before he ate the fruit to give him that understanding, so that according to James 4:17, Adam would know the good thing to do but do the opposite anyway and thus sin? I suppose a kind of Law was given to Adam and Eve when commanded NOT to eat of a specific tree (But the bible claims THE Law didn't come until Moses). So according to James 4:17 Adam knew "the good" to do because God told him what the good thing was, not because Adam himself knew what was good or evil. When Adam ate the fruit, he knew he was going against the Law, but Eve was deceived; "And {it was} not Adam {who} was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" 1 Tim 2:14. So, according to Paul, the woman fell but the man willingly chose. But since Eve didn't know good or evil, then how did she see that the fruit was "good" for food, or that the fruit would have a positive effect (as opposed to having a negative effect) to making one wise (as opposed to leaving one in ignorance)? Also, God apparently told Eve what not to do (Gen 3:3), so wouldn't she also have known the right thing to do?
I can conclude that neither Adam nor Eve sinned in ignorance because they both knew what not to do. James 4:17 says "Therefore, to one who knows {the} right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." which backs up the fact of Roman's 7:7. In order for one to know the good to do, one must have a Law that explains what NOT to do. And God had told them both what not to do.
Again, Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through one man (assumed as Adam). Death entered into existence through sin, which man allowed in. If death is a consequence, a penalty "imputed", and Romans 5:13 says "...sin is not imputed when there is no Law", and the Law came with Moses, then how did death reign from Adam until Moses? Death reigned because God had told Adam and Eve what not to do. Telling them what not to do was giving them a law to obey.. Telling them what not to do was giving them a law to obey. Thus Adam and Eve didn’t need to have personal knowledge of good and evil to sin. God had given them a rule/law/command to obey and they did what they were told NOT to do and thus sinned.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
The problem is that despite being told not to do something, they did not have knowledge of the moral ramifications of doing it.
They did not know that breaking the command "Do not do that" was wrong because they did not have knowledge of such a concept.
Being told that something is 'good' or 'evil' is only of use if you understand each of these concepts and their moral ramifications.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Thanks, I'll add that to my essay.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You're making the very mistake my essay stresses over and over: disobeying cannot be a sin unless person grasps the moral ramifications of disobeying.
But he was incapable of knowing the moral ramifications of breaking any 'law"
She couldn't understand 'good' in any moral sense. Genesis specifically holds that she was created innocent of any moral knoweldge.
And if she DID know it, in contradiction to the entire point of the story, then why would she want to take a risk to learn what she already knew?
Finally, those rascals who return to the 'she had implicit, but not explicit knowledge' 1) then how is she using 'good' in a moral sense?! and 2) this argument fails, because all moral knowledge is gained first implicitly, then explicitly. Every child in the world learns morality this way. THis is basic moral development.
Except that they couldn't.
Here's an interesting sidebar: Can you explain how adam and eve would know what death is?
Sin requires intent. Intent requires knowledge of right and wrong. This knowledge was forbidden to them, hence they could not sin, because they could not grasp the moral ramifications of disobeying.
Just like a dog can know that you don't want him to eat the steak you just left on a table, but it utterly without any grasp of the morality of the situation.
Just like an infant can sense there's a "NO" behind your command, but is unable to realize that her actions are morally wrong....
Please look over your own words, and see how you agree.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
In order for one to know something, one must have the opposite to compare and contrast it with. In this case the "something" is what TO do compared with what NOT to do. One doesn't need to know of any "moral" ramifications to break a commandment/law/rule. God told Adam and Eve what they could and could not do. They did what they were told NOT to do and according to James 4:17 since they knew what NOT to do and did it anyway, therefore they sinned, especially in God's eyes because God knew good and evil. It's so simple that other theists have missed it. Intent and moral undersatnding have nothing to do with sin. Sin is about obedience. Adam and Eve were to simply obey God. If they would just obey God then they wouldn't need to take on the responsibility of knowing good and evil for themselves. They could just rely on God's understanding and not their own.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
But in order for the breaking of the rule to be immoral, one must understand the moral ramifications of breaking the rule.
And the Genesis story states that they were without this knowledge.
Again, they were without any knowledge of good and evil, as per the Genesis account.
Is there any reason why I must repeat these points?
Yes, they do. In order to 'sin', one must have intent to do wrong.
With intent.
To hold that one can 'sin' without intent makes a mockery of morality altogether. It undermines responsiblity altogether....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
James 4:17 doesn't say "Therefore, to one who knows the command to follow and does not follow it, to him it is sin."
It says "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." (NASB)
James 4:17 supports todangts' point, not yours. Adam and Eve didn't know right and wrong.
You would think paradox should have know this, considering he posted James 4:17 as it is in every major Bible in this very thread!:
So the question is: Ignorant, or dishonest? How can he be ignorant with the above quote?
Paradox, why are you even debating this issue with todangst? I've emphasised the part where you yourself said the Bible agrees with todangst. If you agree that the Bible agrees, whats the issue.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I was researching to see if Todangst's claims were true. At first glance I thought James 4:17 prooved him correct. After further study I realized I answered too quick.
If you assume one needs moral intenions in making a choice, then yes, Adam and Eve did need to have a moral knowledge of good and evil to make their choice. However, the story in Genesis shows that God obviously didn't want them to make a choice using moral intentions otherwise God would have created them with the knowledge of good and evil. All God wanted was their obedience. God wanted them to know WHAT to do and not have the ability to ask WHY he wanted them to do it. God told them why anyway, even though God knew they wouldn't comprehend the concept of death. Adam and Eve didn't have the ability to know/ understand WHY, but they knew enough to make a choice. They disobeyed the command and thus sinned.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
Furthermore, just imagine of all the possible experiences mankind COULD have had if they ate of any of the other trees! If that one fruit altered what we understand as reality, what other realities could the other fruits have produced? We get suckered into eating the one fruit that sux! I guess ignorance was meant to be bliss.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
HAHAHAHAHA
Oh... sorry... I thought that was a joke.
Or, maybe you could say, "I used James 4:17 until I realized that it caused an internal contradiction, and now, I'm making an ad hoc explanation to explain it away. After all, the bible is absolutely true because it says it is, so there must not be a contradiction."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
*fixed broken quote*
They could make a choice without moral intentions, but it would be an ‘a-sinful’ choice (i.e. a choice without sin) because to sin specifically requires the ‘sinner’ to understand the moral ramifications of their choice, and then carry it out with intent.
Sure, they can ‘disobey’ in that they could do what god told them not to do, but their actions cannot be classed as sinful as they did not have intent. To have intent requires that they have an understanding of the moral ramifications of their actions. Simply ‘breaking the rules’ does not automatically imply intent. Toddlers ‘break the rules’ all the time but it isn’t until further experiences that they learn the moral ramifications of their choices and actions.
There also issue: god would have known they would do what we asked them not to do, before they done it.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I don’t know what’s worst... the theists who knows the bible makes no sense and just accept it because of faith, or the theists who knows the bibles makes no sense, then tries to use ad hoc 'reason' to paper over the glaring inaccuracies and contradictions.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
James 4:17 supports (not proves) todangt's position. todangt states something a little different, namely that having moral knowledge is necessary for sin. James 4:17 says that moral knowledge is sufficient for sin.
Maybe there are Bible passages that support todangt's point? I'd have to do some searching.
We're not claiming that Adam and Eve needed moral knowledge to make any choice. They could make the choice to disobey without moral knowledge, and the obviously did. But they couldn't have made the choice they did knowing that it was wrong.
I agree. The story supports these statements.
But they raises the (side) question of why God didn't want humans to have knowledge of morals? What was so bad about that? And why would God give such a harsh judgement on two humans who disobeyed him, especially when they didn't know it was wrong to disobey God? Why does God require strict obedience? Is he a control freak?
They disobeyed, but they didn't sin, that is if you agree that a necessary condition to sinning is having moral knowledge. Do you agree that it's a necessary condition?
The whole idea that eating a fruit could radically change human's state of consciousness and make them loose immortality is absurd. I know where assuming the story is true for the sake of the argument, but it's clearly a myth.
The fact that you say we were "suckered into eating the one fruit that sux" shows that you think that the whole thing was a rotten deal. Why did God make it so easy for us to get suckered into the Fall? Why would God package our demise in the same form as the food he gave them to eat, and moreover make it look good? Why did God make the serpent so crafty?
Yes, but it's moot to my point.
And morality does require intent.
But the problem comes in when he holds them morally culpable for disobeying. As I've stated numerous times, they could understand the rule, but they were without the ability to grasp the moral ramifications of disobeying the rule.
You're just interjecting things into Genesis at this point. Please cite chapter and verse, or concede that you're just interjecting here.
This just makes 'god' bizzarely irrational... are you really willing to warp things this much just to cling to a belief?
But without the abiltiy to grasp the moral ramifications of their choices.
Except that sin requires intent. And they were without the ability to grasp the moral ramifications of disobeying.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. Either you have to concede that they could not sin, or you have to hold that one can sin without intent, and thereby obliterate the concept of responsiblity altogether.... and reduce moralty to utter nonsense.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'