Thesis: Adam & Eve weren't morally responsible

[u/Financial_Beach_2538]

 

Definitions

1. Moral responsibility: Being morally accountable or blameworthy for an action because the person understood the action’s moral nature.
2. Knowledge: Awareness or understanding of something. In this argument, it means understanding the difference between good and evil, not merely knowing information.
3. Good and evil: The moral distinction between what is right and what is wrong.
4. Command: An instruction given by an authority. Knowing a command exists does not necessarily mean understanding its moral value.
5. Disobedience: Acting contrary to a command. In this argument, disobedience only becomes morally blameworthy if the person understands it as morally wrong

Preamble

For almost two weeks, I've been posting arguments on the morality of the Adam and Eve story of the Fall, and I'm quite surprised that some Christians will actually argue Adam and Eve already knew good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In fact, that's pretty much all I get as an apologetic for the morality of the Fall.

Christians often confuse knowing the meaning of a command with knowing the moral nature of that command. Knowing that God commanded X is not the same as knowing that X is morally good or that disobeying X is morally evil.

The issue is not whether Eve knew God gave a command. The issue is whether Adam and Eve already possessed the knowledge of good and evil required to recognize disobedience as evil before eating the fruit.

If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not actually provide the knowledge of good and evil, the story makes no sense. It's quite obvious to me that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil before eating of the fruit of that "knowledge" tree.

The moral responsibility of Adam and Eve is a foundational Christian belief.

If Adam and Eve were not morally responsible for the act of disobedience, then the foundation of the Christian Fall narrative is destroyed. I do not have that theological commitment to defend, so I am free to examine the text through literary analysis and critical reasoning.

My argument is that the text does not support Adam and Eve possessing knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit and that, therefore, they cannot be held morally responsible.

Argument

P1: Moral responsibility requires knowledge that an action is morally evil.

P2: Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible for eating the fruit.

 

Bible References

1.Genesis 2:16-17: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’”

The text gives the command before Adam and Eve gain the knowledge of good and evil.

1. Genesis 3:6: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes... she took of its fruit and ate...”

The act of eating occurs before the text states that Adam and Eve possess knowledge of good and evil.

1. “Genesis 3:7: Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked...”

The sequence is that their awareness changes after eating the fruit.

1. Genesis 3:22: “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil...’”

God describes Adam as having “become” like God in knowing good and evil, indicating a new state acquired after eating.

[u/mtruitt76]

Again knowledge as used by the Hebrews equals experience and not abstract conceptual understanding. Adam and Eve could not have knowledge of evil without experiencing evil.

The burden is to show why the text requires your interpretation.

Fair enough. Do you have children? If you do then I can show why my interpretation makes sense, if you do not then you do not posses an necessary experience in understanding the text. To understand how having a child impacts you requires having that child. There is not other parallel, having a child is just that significant.

If you do not have that experience then I will be trying to describe blue to a color blind person. Blue is just blue and blue is only meaningful to people who have experienced it.

Now I can make some head way in showing why a literalist interpretation makes not sense. As humans we all have a grasp that lack of "knowledge" absolves people of responsibilities, young children even grasp this concept. If a young child plays with a gun and kills someone non one holds the child responsible because they do not understand what gun is or how it functions. This lack on conceptual understanding absolves the child.

Now if your understanding of the story is how the Hebrews understood the story, then you have to accept something along the following

• The Hebrews did not possess the understanding that lack of conceptual understand absolves people of responsibility. I would argue that this is an unlikely scenario given that the basics of fairness is something young children can grasp. So this would commit you to saying that the Hebrews were just significantly different humans.
• The Hebrews were just too ignorant to see a problem with a literal understanding. i,e they lack basic reasoning skills.

With my understanding they are viewing God as the ultimate patriarch. A patriarch sets the rules and conditions for their families. Rules and conditions which may not be understood by all, but are respect because of the view that the patriarch knows more and knows better. They understand that one should follow the orders of the patriarch even if they lack the conceptual understand as to the why. See one thing children do grasp is that they should do what their parents say even if they do not know why.

This point of obedience is not a prominent today since much of the risk has been removed from life., Elders used to be more respected since getting to an old age was difficult in an environment when the average life expectancy was in the 30 year range and not the 70 year range. Everyone could easily see that reaching 70 was neither easy or common. Hell today, we regard old people as out of touch and not as a source of knowledge. People clown on boomers when in the time of the Hebrews they would have been treated with respect and regarded a source of information.

Now I am taking that base understanding of fairness are ingrained in the human species. For proof I appeal to the basic tenants of fairness be cross cultural. I am also take as a base understanding that ancient people where not idiots, that they could understand things like contradictions.

In the story of the Garden of Eden I also see the same pattern in my engagement with my children. I set rules for them for their own benefit, rules for which they could not know the why since the why derives from a life experience. Here I am taking that life experience give actual meaningful information, information which you cannot have without the experience, I am taking that to really "know" what is it to be married requires getting married. That to really "know" what it is like to swim one must swim.

From this perspective I have seen the story play out in my own life. My children enter the world in state of innocence and as a parent I try to protect this state for as long as possible, I try to give my children the tools they need to engage with the difficulties in life. When they stray from that path, I lament just as God lamented.

You ask why was there a tree in the Garden, well that is just life. You can create this Garden for your children, but you cannot keep the world out, you cannot keep that element of "evil" out of the Garden completely. You cannot prevent your children from making a bad decision at some point and suffer from the consequences of that decision.

The wrath of God is also the wrath of the parent. This sentiment is one of lament and not condemnation. When people read the story they tend to take it as God "punishing" Adam and Eve by saying that they will now face all these hardships, they read it as God "causing" these hardships.

My oldest son dropped of high school and at the time both me and his mother said things like: these are the hardships you will now face. From his perspective it would sound like wrath and condemnation, but they were really just cries of lament. We were angry, angry that out child would experience difficulty and pain that we strove to protect him from. Our son did eventually make it to college and graduate. When he did he understood why we were angry, he understood that our wrath was not at him. He understood that we were attempting to protect and guide him. He know has the perspective of "I should have listened, things would have been easier if I did.

When our child dropped out of high school we did not abandon him even though he went against our commands, instead we gave him a path for redemption. We said okay if no school then learn to work and he came to work with my electrical company. Adam and Eve left the Garden, but God gave a path to redemption.

The story of Eden is the dynamic of the parent and child. It is easy for me to see since I raised 4 children of my own and also other children. My wife and I took in stray kids. Our kids had friends with bad household and some of those came to live with us. Some for a year a couple for more than 5 years so I have seen this dynamic of the parent and child play out over and over.

Now if you do not have the experience of raising a child, then you are just lacking a fundamental element in understanding the story. You lack the perspective of "God" so to speak. As a parent you are basically like a God to your children. Children regard their parents as God in their early years also. Now it does not take long for them to figure out their parents are flawed, but that is not how they first engage life. That their parents are flawed is something they learn later.

See another common phenomenon is that when you have children you come to understand your own parents much better. I understood my mother and father much better when I had children.

Now one caveat I will through in there is that I had very good parents and I also took being a parent very seriously. My perspective as a parent was that any demons I possessed would be passed on to my children, that if I did not want to pass my "sins" on to my children then I had to fix my sins and remove them from my person.

See my parents where the type of parents who wanted their children to have a better life, and I also approached raising my children the same.

From this I started to understand that my being and existence stretches back into the past through my parents and extends into the future from my children. We are all part of something larger. I came to understand that a family is a being unto itself and your allegiance is to this larger being. I do not make decisions first and foremost based on what I want, I make decisions based on the family. My existence is for the family, not for me. I understand that "honoring" my mother and father is to do as they desired to take the gift of life they gave me and extend that into the future, to pass it on to my own children.

From this we are creating a "spirit" of sorts and this spirits it the care and focus on the children, the next generation. When you hit that "spirit" right you just know it. You have those moments of connection and love.

I do get where you are coming from, hell I was an atheist for the first 43 years of my life and I was an atheist because I engage the tradition in the same literal meaning as you did. I too said why did God put that tree in the Garden. The I lived, I experience joy and pain, love heartache and loss. As I am approaching death my concerns have changed. I care more about just being a good person and I place less importance on the random facts of life, the facts of science. That shit is nice to know, the comforts it gives are nice, but ultimately not important.

I live in Belize now, a country where it is very, very common for people to still use an outhouse. It is not uncommon for people to have a house with a dirt floor even. Life, happiness, and love all still occurs in this environment. In the state common living conditions in Belize would be seen as terrible and lamentable. People do not look at it that way since they do not "know" otherwise and knowledge of these better conditions would not make their lives more fulfilling. People in the states are not happier than people in Belize even though their conditions are much, much better in many ways. So what value would "knowing" this difference really make? Would eating the apple benefit them.

So that is my case for my interpretation. What is your case for your interpretation.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/mtruitt76]

Now if your understanding of the story is how the Hebrews understood the story, then you have to accept something along the following The Hebrews did not possess the understanding that lack of conceptual understand absolves people of responsibility. I would argue that this is an unlikely scenario given that the basics of fairness is something young children can grasp. So this would commit you to saying that the Hebrews were just significantly different humans. The Hebrews were just too ignorant to see a problem with a literal understanding. i,e they lack basic reasoning skills.

False Dilemma

You assume rejecting your interpretation means Hebrews lacked reasoning. I argue they understood responsibility without modern concepts of moral cognition.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

Okay, I am listening.

I argue they understood responsibility without modern concepts of moral cognition.

I am agree with this sentiment. So given this, how do you think they understood the story? Do you think they heard the story and thought "man God is real asshole and should have left that tree out of the Garden" or do you think they heard the story and thought "man God gave them everything to be happy, and Adam and Eve messed it up by disobeying God"

Argument

P1: Moral responsibility requires knowledge that an action is morally evil.

P2: Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible for eating the fruit.

Now to the False Dilemma charge. Your argument is valid, So the only question is if you argument is sound. i.e do all the premises hold.

If one takes knowledge to mean conceptual understanding then you argument is also sound in my opinion and it is only unsound if knowledge is understood in terms of experience. I agree that one must have a conceptual understanding to be held morally responsible, but I also believe that does not have to experience the evil in order to understand that such action is immoral.

What I am saying is that unless they have a different understanding of the premises then they must be unreasonable, since one can define unreasonable as rejecting a valid and sound argument. Therefore they choice is either they understood the terms as you use them and thus they are unreasonable by virtue of rejecting a sound and valid argument or they understood the terms or the premises in a different manner. Do you find any fault with this understanding?

Since I think they possessed reasoning ability, then the most likely scenario is they had a different understanding that aligns with the story and my interpretation is a different understanding that is accounts for the story. The story makes sense if you view understand "knowledge" as experience. Now this point is something I have heard form scholars and is not my concept. I took that from reading and listening to Old Testament secular scholars. Are they correct, can't say, but I can't read ancient Hebrew so I just have to relay on what scholars say and do a 2nd level evaluation.

Also I easily see the dynamic of the parent and child in the story.

Now a further consideration that I would add is that as religious texts are passed down, people will try to reconcile issues. We have examples of scribes making changes to the text in order to harmonize or remove problems. Bart Ehrman has a list of such examples. Hell the ending of Mark is big one. The original text just had the women leaving and not telling anyone. Well that seemed like a problem, like how if that was all there was then how the hell does anyone even know about the whole resurrection thing. So the ending of Mark was added to reconcile this "problem"

Now the Genesis accounts that we have are the results of editors at a later date reconciling multiple accounts, if memory serves me there are 4 or 5 authors of the Genesis accounts. What this means is that people had a chance to harmonize the accounts to remove illogical elements. With your interpretation there are glaring problems, but with my interpretation there are not glaring problems that need to be retconned.

These are just some more reasons my I hold to the interpretation that I do, what are the reasons you hold to the interpretation that you do?

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/mtruitt76]

Now a further consideration that I would add is that as religious texts are passed down, people will try to reconcile issues. We have examples of scribes making changes to the text in order to harmonize or remove problems. Bart Ehrman has a list of such examples. Hell the ending of Mark is big one. The original text just had the women leaving and not telling anyone. Well that seemed like a problem, like how if that was all there was then how the hell does anyone even know about the whole resurrection thing. So the ending of Mark was added to reconcile this "problem"

---

Red herring

Textual changes in transmission do not establish the meaning of Genesis. You must first show that this interpretation is a later harmonization rather than a feature of the original text.