Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread
| 704 | 250480 |
So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj
- 704 Replies
I thought they were told not to eat the fruit?
Sorry, I guess that was unclear. There was an example someone gave earlier of a child being told to not touch a hot pan and does so anyway. What I'm saying here is that, even in that kind of example, the child has at least a basic level of moral knowledge to know that disobeying her parents is wrong. But Adam and Eve, on the other hand, lacked even this sort of moral knowledge (since this is what the fruit would have provided). They (unlike the child) would have been ignorant of the fact that disobeying God's command was wrong or immoral.
This might be hard to get your head around, so pushing this example might help. If the child touches the hot pan and gets burnt, we can reasonably say that she got what she deserved (at least to some extent). She was told not to touch the pan, she knew that doing so was wrong (because it's disobeying her parents) and so if she gets hurt she sort of had it coming. But Adam and Eve would have lacked even this basic level of moral reasoning. They simply couldn't have made an informed moral decision regarding the fruit. I would see them more like puppies. When a puppy does something dumb and hurts itself, it might be frustrating but we wouldn't say that the puppy gets what it deserves. That's because the puppy lacks the level of knowledge and understanding that would make it morally blameworthy.
The upshot here is that I don't accept the analogy of a child disobeying its parents. And that's precisely because the child (as the case is described) is a moral agent - at least in the relevant sense. But without any faculties of moral reasoning, Adam and Eve couldn't have even met this standard. And yet they were still punished - and very harshly - for their transgression. And this is when they're more like the puppy who lacks the appropriate faculties to understand or appreciate the consequences of its actions.
But why do you think Adam and Eve did not possess any moral reasoning? it would seem that God made man (according to the Bible at least) and gifted us with the powers of choice and logic from the very beginning. In terms of composition, I would say humans before eating the fruit were more akin to children than puppies, as they did possess the logic, intelligence and power of choice we do. A puppy does not possess logic, just like every other animal, it is driven by instincts and some basic emotions but cannot think rationally. Humans' defining trait before eating the fruit was their naivety, or at least that's what I gather from that story...
But why do you think Adam and Eve did not possess any moral reasoning?
Good - since my whole argument hinges on what the fruit is doing, I should spend a little more time here.
Going back to my original post, I considered 2 options regarding the fruit. Now, the tree itself is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This name seems to have 2 different interpretations, which I listed above. The first is that it gives knowledge of moral truths (so, good and evil). The second, which is more widely accepted (I think) is that it gives all knowledge. That phrase "of good and evil" is similar to our phrase "from A to Z" where it just means everything. Or, at least, a whole lot of things. So there's some good reason to believe that it gives Adam and Eve moral truths. Either this is its only role, or it gives moral truths in virtue of the fact that it gives all truths.
We also have a bit of evidence from Genesis 3, when they eat the fruit. Depending on what you're reading, the story is something like this: they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened and they realised they were naked. God was then like, "What are you guys doing? Who told you that you were naked? Oh... did you eat that fruit?!"
Now you might point out here that little kids enjoy running around naked and don't realise that it's customary to cover oneself. But this response, I think, misses the point here. The relevant point is that they realised they were doing something that was inappropriate - that they were naked. And keep in mind that this wasn't a cultural realisation (after all, 2 people doesn't make a culture). They weren't told this, either; they just realised it. So there's some objective matter of fact that they became aware of and that fact (whatever it was) was a moral truth. And it seems like it was a pretty basic one at that.
So we could take this a few ways. Earlier, I said that Adam and Eve lacked the faculty for moral reasoning. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that's wrong. Instead, they simply weren't able to do any moral reasoning because they had no information. It would be like trying to reason about quantum mechanics with literally no knowledge or understanding of the core principles in that field. So I'd like to amend my previous statement and say that, while they had the faculties for moral reasoning, they lacked the information needed to employ those faculties.
So you're right to challenge my analogy to a puppy, since the puppy lacks the faculty altogether. But I still think my conclusion goes through, since they're also not like a small child who understands that disobeying her parent is wrong. That requires moral knowledge, which Adam and Eve lacked. They just don't have the information they need to do any moral reasoning. And that, I would say, still excludes them from being moral agents.
Seeing as the serpent could not possibly compel humans with knowledge of something they, well, did not know of, I think another version of the Fall is closer to the message the story is supposed to convey. That the serpent tempted the humans by telling them that they will become gods by eating the fruit. That God did not want them to eat it because he did not want them to become gods. You see, in the Bible, the Fall from heaven is depicted as the product of human arrogance, not just human curiosity.
At any rate though, I think Moe's point still stands. That their decision could not have been informed. It's like asking a 4 year old whether it wants to leave its parents' house and fend for itself or not. Ignoring the amount of similarities between kids and Adam and Eve before they were casted out, the analogy still is that God gave them the choice without the training and experience to make that decision.
i specifically asked my parents about the whole "they had no knowledge of good and evil yet, so how could they be held responsible?" thing about a week ago.
i dont remember what they said specifically, but i think it was along the lines of "God said it. it doesn't really matter if they knew it was evil. they still disobeyed."
i find this answer quite unsatisfactory. God cursed both Adam and Eve, and the whole entire world forever? over that 1 thing?
kind of dramatic... :P
another issue i had with the whole garden of eden story (though this one is much less major. lol)
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
Most religious people would say that there would be absolutely no death in the garden. everything was perfect, and there was no sin. So there was no death.
but what does verse 22 say? "...lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever..."
this makes it sound like Adam and Eve were Not Immortal meaning that they Would Die eventually
the verse makes it sound like they hadn't eaten from the tree yet, and if they did, they would then live forever.
So how does that work out with "there would be no death in the garden"???
is this justified by these verses? Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”
does that mean that they were eating from the tree of life all that time? but that doesn't make 100% sense either... the Genesis 3 verse makes it sound like it is "1 and done". eat once, and you live forever. so if it worked like that, and if they were already eating from that tree, wouldn't they already live forever?
i dont remember what they said specifically, but i think it was along the lines of "God said it. it doesn't really matter if they knew it was evil. they still disobeyed."
This is exactly what I meant. The story argues for mere obedience. Adam and Eve were examples of how not to behave, i.e. not 'eating from the tree of knowledge' but trust God blindly.
another issue i had with ... wouldn't they already live forever?
I'd have to read it in its entirety to really make an informed reply about your question, but I can't help but notice that there are two trees? One of knowledge, and one of life? Though I think you should quote the verses in order; from what it looks like from the verses you quote, in Genesis 2 God is warning them not to eat from the tree of knowledge or they become mortal, and in Genesis 3 he says they could live forever (again?) by eating from the tree of life, and so he casts them out of Eden (maybe because otherwise the whole point of the story was in vain?). Sounds very strange to me, so I might read it up.
Either way it reminds me of the Scandinavian sagas. From what I remember, the Aesir (Odin etc.) remained immortal as long as they occasionally ate the fruits of a particular tree.
God in no way made the fruit seem desirable; He did the exact opposite.
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye
The fifth chapter does say that Adam was 130 years old at the birth of his son Seth, but there is no reference to the amount of time that passes between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, Eve's creation and the Fall and expulsion from Eden
This further substantiates the claim that it was a trap. If it wasn't they would've just sat there literally forever, since they'd all stay immortal. Additionally, without a point of reference for how long such a test would persist, He could've seen if they were obedient for any amount of time and rewarded all of humanity with paradise. Since He left it open indefinitely, this heavily implies that the test was indeed an unwinnable trap.
The teacher suspecting (or, in this case, knowing) beforehand that the student will fail does not invalidate the student's right to prove himself.
One who believes their child possesses enough sense, maturity, and intelligence not to eat something which they have been told in clear terms will kill them?
Adam and Eve failing was not God's goal.
These statements directly conflict. If God KNEW they would fail, then He did NOT believe they were ready. Knowing that they're not ready, and setting it up anyway, means that it WAS the goal.
And, the Garden of Eden situation is more of a parent-pretending-to-walk-away-but-in-reality-is-still-watching-through-the-door-that-just-looks-it's-completely-closed type metaphor....
No it isn't. He left and returned later, actively searching for them. A parent looking through the door usually stops the danger, or at least shows awareness. The Binding of Isaac is the pretending-to-walk-away version.
And, even if they had refused the suggestion to eat the fruit, they still would have acquired a knowledge of good and evil, just from a different perspective.
No they wouldn't. Evil (or the concept of evil) didn't exist there. Literally everything they'd ever encountered was deemed "good" just by existing.
this makes it sound like Adam and Eve were Not Immortal meaning that they Would Die eventually
the verse makes it sound like they hadn't eaten from the tree yet, and if they did, they would then live forever.
There are a few interpretations of the role of that tree. Some argue that they, and all things, were created immortal in the simple sense (unable to die of age), but not imperviously so. Others see the tree as the source of their extended lives, but they'd need to keep eating from it in order to stay immortal. Either way, the fruit they ate corrupted the immortality. The tree of life would've essentially acted as an antidote at that point, meaning that if they ate it, they wouldn't learn the consequence of being disobedient because the inherent penalty would go away.
However, the fact that it didn't occur to Him to simply destroy or remove the tree, or at least revoke its restorative powers temporarily, to me, implies a different story. As others have pointed out, for Him to add something pleasing to the eye that allows an opportunity to challenge his own authority seems VERY counterproductive. In some early interpretations of the creation myth, El is the creator God who made the universe and everything, Jehovah is a war demon, and there's a goddess of wisdom among many other gods. El allowed Jehovah to govern the earth, but when he wasn't looking, the goddess of wisdom planted some heavenly trees of knowledge and life as gifts to the humans. Powerless to remove them, Jehovah instructed the humans not to touch them. When he left, she came in to successfully encourage their curiosity, but they had only taken the first fruit when Jehovah returned. He set up a firmament to bar any further celestial interference. Knowing that he would be unable to stop the second fruit's power, he barred the humans by physical force and induced suffering, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of the arguments are both cleared up and muddled further in the JW interpretation that God has the ability to know everything, but does not use it. It's like he has an infinite library of everything, but chooses which books to read.
A puppy does not possess logic, just like every other animal, it is driven by instincts and some basic emotions but cannot think rationally.That's a very outmoded and blatantly false generalization.
The serpent in no way contradicted or attempted to supersede this; at the most they might have thanked the serpent for the clarification but persisted in declining to eat.Why? All of the information they received was vague and misleading anyway. The consequences of eating some magical object that they have a predisposition to regard as food would be incomprehensible to them, as would the consequenses of doing something they were told not to do. If they could even reason that far, they might as easily assume that God just changed His mind and sent somebody (who they have no reason to distrust) to give them the OK.
Most people are made to suffer at some point in their lives because of the decisions of others and will make others suffer through their own decisions; this suffering is often restricted to their personal sphere of influence, however big and small that is.No. People suffer primarily due to the limitations of their environment. In an ideal world of perpetual bounty and fun, there really isn't any point to hoarding, stealing, swindling, envying, ostracising, land-claiming, feuding, lying, coveting, fearmongering, hatemongering, or self-promotion.
By your argument's own logic, this question is rendered immaterial, as Adam and Eve would have had zero concept of "a good thing" or "a bad thing" as well.Exactly. So it looks like we're all in agreement that without any training or prior experience, neither one of them had any way of comprehending the importance of following His every command, or even what it means to do wrong.
well maxfang36...
that is such a convincing point to this debate....
i just dont know how we could ever debate against that statement...
lol flagged
That's a very outmoded and blatantly false generalization.
What exactly isn't then? Link?
What exactly isn't then? Link?
You'll find that animals like e.g. crows, octopuses or chimps can probably think rationally to some degree, as is suggested by their problem-solving capabilities. However, I don't think this makes any difference in the current debate (*), as we are not talking about the same level of rationality. In Moe's analogy, like Adam and Eve before the incident animals/puppies are not moral agents in the same way human children are. I am not saying that all animals are devoid of morals, but you cannot compare two things that are probably so different.
(*)but mostly because the analogy does not validate or invalidate the argument that Adam and Eve were not moral agents.
yeah I get that, but since my view is probably outmoded apparently, I asked for a link to read on that a bit further. It's not exactly close to the point of this thread, but I would like to see where he gets his info from
First of all, I think you guys should understand the nature of God before you say He is overreacting or He's pretty dramatic. Yes, God demands absolute and perfect obedience. But He himself is absolutely perfect. No one can enter His presence because no one is perfect, except for Jesus because Jesus is God in the flesh. %100 human % God. So it's right to say that he is extremely demanding, but He has the right to. He is the creator of the Universe and the creator of us.
Now I just wanted to point something out here too:
No matter how pretty something is, if you know it to be lethal, it's not going to be appealing.
Look at cigarettes or drugs. To addicts, it's very appealing and most of them know how lethal it is, but they choose to smoke anyways. But I definitely agree with you to some extent. I just think sometimes people forget about the danger of the things they find appealing. The thing immediately becomes appealing when they forget. I think that's the case with us humans when we are tempted.
James 1:13-18 I just want to turn your attention to what temptation is. It never comes from God but rather from the Evil One. Satan makes the most dangerous things look attractive.
You must be logged in to post a reply!