Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[William]

Linked Topic: The Knowledge of Good and Evil

From the Thread Topic: Questions for those who believe in free will

Replying to The Tanager in post #132] Discussion between The Tanager and William:

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will create another thread on that question.

It appears to me that with the premise;

"Free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator."

that free will therefore comes after the acquiring of KGE.

IF the premise is true THEN the story that humans acquired KGE through disobeying a command not to eat the fruit which is credited with giving humans such knowledge, must be false.

This because, in order to have "moral considerations" one has to have that "knowledge of good and evil", and thus IF The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given] THEN there is no requirement for any "Forbidden fruit" to be the object/means through which KGE was obtained, as it was already implanted with the natural human condition by The Creator.

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

[myth-one.com]

It was the only commandment they knew, and thus the only one they could violate.

And how were they to know that obeying God and disobeying Satan was right? Disobedience alone is not wrong. One says eat it, one says do not eat it. They have to disobey someone.

God explained the consequences of violating His command in some detail:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17)

How would Adam & Eve know what die means?

God probably explained that also.

Anyway, the wages of sin is death, and the only possible sin was eating from the tree of knowledge. It was probably explained to them.

No one told them to eat from the tree -- including Satan.

Eating from the tree was each of their individual choices.

No one told or forced Eve to eat from the tree, nor did anyone force Adam to do so.

Both were commanded not to eat from the tree.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #7]

If free will is "built from our human nature" how could it also only come about after a particular act?

I think that The Tanagers argument is that one requires free will in order to act morally/immorally in the first instance, which - as the OP points out - is something necessary to argue if one is to stand by the claim that human beings were not permitted [forbidden] to know good and evil.

Thus,

Q: How can we have morals without knowing good and evil?"

Which - following the logic of the story under question [Adam and Eve] - we are left with the notion that The Creator did not want us have morals. Rather than, as The Tanager argues - The Creator built knowledge of good and evil into our nature from the go-get...so therefore the story is not necessary to 'explain' how we came by morals...through "disobeying The Creator" as the notion is quite absurd.

[Purple Knight]

And how were they to know that obeying God and disobeying Satan was right? Disobedience alone is not wrong. One says eat it, one says do not eat it. They have to disobey someone.

The same way a non-psychopath instinctively knows not to harm a baby. Or a sane person knows not to put their hand into a fire, by analysing previous experience, logical thinking and internal instinct.

Since Adam and Eve never before had any serious hand-in-fire negative experiences wherein they were punished (to my knowledge), and since internal instinct just falls back on having a conscience to begin with (KGE that William is talking about), the analysis of previous experience would amount to... because God was nice to them. I can live with that since it makes decent sense that if someone has given you everything (well, except one thing) and another has not, it's fairly reasonable that if you've got to obey one and disobey one, you select the former to obey. It actually sounds nasty when I type it out... that you ought to obey the one who has given you more... but the alternative, to obey the one who has not given you anything, is at least as bad as the other in addition to being disrespectful.

[William]

And how were they to know that obeying God and disobeying Satan was right? Disobedience alone is not wrong. One says eat it, one says do not eat it. They have to disobey someone.

The same way a non-psychopath instinctively knows not to harm a baby. Or a sane person knows not to put their hand into a fire, by analysing previous experience, logical thinking and internal instinct.

Since Adam and Eve never before had any serious hand-in-fire negative experiences wherein they were punished (to my knowledge), and since internal instinct just falls back on having a conscience to begin with (KGE that William is talking about), the analysis of previous experience would amount to... because God was nice to them. I can live with that since it makes decent sense that if someone has given you everything (well, except one thing) and another has not, it's fairly reasonable that if you've got to obey one and disobey one, you select the former to obey. It actually sounds nasty when I type it out... that you ought to obey the one who has given you more... but the alternative, to obey the one who has not given you anything, is at least as bad as the other in addition to being disrespectful.

Not to forget that there was more to 'surely dying' than simply dying. One has to first endure a hard cursed life before actually dying.
And also - it was not the KGE which made the couple die. It was taking away their access to the fruit of the tree of life which caused that to happen.

All in all, trying to argue that the being [called God] in the story was a 'nice' entity when taking those things into account, seems more than just a stretch - more a case of not seeing the wood from the trees...but even more the case of bowing to an image of The Creator which is so obviously not nice at all...one understands fear of the damage such a being can inflict upon an individual as being more the reason folk gravitate to this idea of a Creator - not through love, but fear.

[JehovahsWitness]

... internal instinct just falls back on having a conscience to begin with ...

Are you suggesting Adam and Eve were accordent to the story, created without a conscience ?







JW

[Purple Knight]

the reason folk gravitate to this idea of a Creator

I can't say the God in the story wasn't nice... specifically to pre-apple-stealy Adam and Eve. He gave them everything.

I do wrestle with myself about this though. Quite a lot, actually. On the one hand, I think I believe right and wrong are independent of punishment. I think I believe one ought to do the right thing because it is right, even if one is punished for it. But I also wonder what is left of the concept of right and wrong if it's divorced from consequences. I often imagine of the Christian canon, well, this God fellow might not be very nice. He might be evil, but powerful. And then of course I'll be cast into Hell for disobeying him but I ought to anyway.

Only... if we're to divorce right and wrong entirely from rewards and punishment, we do have to divorce it from the rewards and punishment of society as well, and that includes our parents, which is probably how most of us know right from wrong in the first place. If we were born on a purge planet, would we think it was okay to go kill everyone every 7th of September (or whatever)? If we were taught that stealing was right and people who don't guard their stuff are fools who deserve it, would we then think that? If we were taught that it was a mercy to harm or kill the weak and a prolonged torture to help them, would we then believe that?

All I can say for certain is that I would have these same doubts in Nazi universe. Maybe it's wrong to kill the weak. And then, I seem wrong there but more correct here. But as a tradeoff, I have the same doubts here. Is stealing really wrong? Killing? How much of what we think is just because of the universe we live in? How much of it would we think oppositely on if we'd been taught oppositely? And why do we listen to our parents initially except that they reward and/or punish us?

... internal instinct just falls back on having a conscience to begin with ...

Are you suggesting Adam and Eve were accordent to the story, created without a conscience ?

If they literally didn't know the difference between good and evil, would that not be an accurate statement?

I've upvoted your more clarified previous post. I used to agree with that. I used to think, our loved ones, our parents, our friends... those should get a higher priority. If someone has invested in me, shouldn't I return the favour? Modern morality teaches otherwise. Modern morality loathes favouritism, one form of which is racism. The system of oppression and white privilege that is considered the worst thing to ever happen by modern morality is nothing but an extended group of people favouring those who favour them. Modern morality calls us to a higher objective than returning love or friendship, and dares us to seek the higher, more ascetic path, turning away from those who love us, rejecting that favouritism, rejecting the rewards, and instead focusing our love on those who may not love us at all, or even those who hate us, and loving without reward... unconditionally.

It resonates with me a great deal and it's why I would rather defend the religious than my fellow atheists.

I don't know if it makes any sense, but to me, the return-the-favour way seems animalistic, lower, like a monkey currying favour with the alpha monkey. But to take a step away from that, and, for example, choose someone else's child over my own if two were drowning... that seems higher, more righteous, and more good. And maybe that very thing (thinking of how good I can be rather than my child if he's drowning) makes me evil. I don't know. I do know that since I'm a psychopath, I will definitely be evil if I don't think constantly about how to be good, so if I just go with my instinct I've lost already.

[JehovahsWitness]

... internal instinct just falls back on having a conscience to begin with ...

Are you suggesting Adam and Eve were accordent to the story, created without a conscience ?

If they literally didn't know the difference between good and evil, would that not be an accurate statement?

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attibuted to the tree they eventually ate from?

[Tcg]

Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attibuted to the tree they eventually ate from?

Given that God reportedly said this:

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There'd be no reason to base it solely on the name of the tree.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There'd be no reason to base it solely on the name of the tree.


Tcg

So would it be fair to say you interpret Genesis 3:22 literally ? That Adam and Eve literally had no information in their heads about anything good? That if you showed them something good and said "this is good" they would have looked at you with puzzlement unable to understand what the sentence meant? They would have understood the words "this is..." but would have stumbled at the word good unable to attribute meaning to the sounds?







RELATED POSTS

Was it reasonable that Eve BELIEVE the snake?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

Who sinned first? Adam or Eve?[Gen 3:6]
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ? ("set up To fail")
viewtopic.php?p=390066#p390066

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394

Did Adam and Eve understand the punishment (notion of death)?
viewtopic.php?p=849053#p849053

Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p801703

For more details please go to other posts related to...

SATAN THE DEVIL , THE GARDEN OF EDEN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[Tcg]

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There'd be no reason to base it solely on the name of the tree.


Tcg

So would it be fair to say you interpret Genesis 3:22 literally ? That Adam and Eve literally had no information in their heads about anything good? That if you showed them something good and said "this is good" they would have looked at you with puzzlement unable to understand what the sentence meant? They would have understood the words "this is..." but would have stumbled at the word good unable to attribute meaning to the sounds?

I'm quoting what God supposedly said. If you don't agree with that report you have an issue with the Bible, not my reporting of what it says.


Tcg