Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #159]

Your response to William effectively describes how people acquire an understanding of the difference between "right" and "wrong" under a particular brand of theism. If "morality" is defined in your argument as "understanding the difference between right and wrong," then acquiring that knowledge is logically necessary for them to have a morality. Even if the god had a prescribed morality in mind for humanity at the time of their creation, there is no practical value to stating that people have a morality before they've acquired the knowledge of "right" and "wrong" for them to functionally implement it.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #159]

It’s important not to view the story of Adam and Eve as merely one of disobedience and punishment. Such a simplified interpretation misses the deeper meaning and the broader implications for how morality develops. Instead, the story can be seen as an exploration of how moral understanding arises from experience rather than simply following commands.

In the narrative, Adam and Eve are instructed not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While they are given a rule, they lack the experiential knowledge of what good and evil truly mean. This highlights an essential aspect of morality: it’s not enough to be told something is right or wrong—true moral comprehension often comes through experiencing the consequences of our actions.

Viewing the story in this light, the act of eating the fruit symbolizes the moment when Adam and Eve gained real knowledge of good and evil. It wasn’t that they had no sense of morality before, but their understanding was theoretical and incomplete. After eating the fruit, they experienced the consequences firsthand, which gave them a much deeper moral awareness. This shift emphasizes that morality is something we grow into through experience, not something that is fully realized just by being told what to do or what to avoid.

This approach aligns with a common human truth: moral development occurs through our engagement with the world. We learn about right and wrong not merely by following rules, but by experiencing the impact of our choices. For example, someone might know intellectually that lying is wrong, but it is through experiencing the harm it causes that they come to truly understand the moral weight of their actions.

The story of Adam and Eve, then, isn’t just about breaking a rule and being punished. It’s about how moral awareness develops. Adam and Eve didn’t fully comprehend the significance of their choice until after they had made it, showing that knowledge of good and evil is tied to real-life experience. Their disobedience is less about a failure of loyalty and more about a journey into moral consciousness—something that wasn’t fully achievable without firsthand experience.

The story shows that morality is a process, not a static state. Even though they had the capacity to follow a command, their understanding of why that command mattered was incomplete until they experienced its consequences. This illustrates that humans, too, often need to live through situations to fully grasp the complexities of good and evil.

In conclusion, it’s important to see the story of Adam and Eve as a symbolic journey into moral awareness, rather than simply as an act of disobedience. The knowledge of good and evil they gained represents the kind of experiential knowledge that is essential for understanding the true nature of morality. Just as we learn through our own experiences, the story suggests that moral understanding is something that develops as we face real-world choices and their outcomes. Morality, then, is less about following external rules and more about growing through experience into a fuller understanding of good and evil.

[Bible_Student]

Conversations about "morality" within the framework of Biblical Christianity rely on an accurate understanding of the Biblical Scriptures, rather than mere philosophical debates. For those, other platforms exist that are unrelated to religious discourse.

[bluegreenearth]

Conversations about "morality" within the framework of Biblical Christianity rely on an accurate understanding of the Biblical Scriptures, rather than mere philosophical debates. For those, other platforms exist that are unrelated to religious discourse.

The "Christianity and Apologetics" room is the designated platform in this forum where these types of philosophical debates are permitted. For conversations within the framework of Biblical Christianity, the "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" room is available.

[William]

Conversations about "morality" within the framework of Biblical Christianity rely on an accurate understanding of the Biblical Scriptures, rather than mere philosophical debates. For those, other platforms exist that are unrelated to religious discourse.

It’s worth noting that the subject of Adam and the story of the knowledge of good and evil were introduced into the discussion by a Christian, bringing Biblical themes into a broader conversation about morality. However, when engaging with these stories, the focus should be on the ideas and lessons they present, rather than insisting on their historical accuracy. The moral and philosophical questions raised by the story of Adam—such as whether morality is tied to experience or external commands—are relevant whether or not one believes the story is a factual account.

Rather than sidestepping the critique by shifting the conversation toward Biblical authority, it would be more productive to engage directly with the points raised. The critique offers a way to interpret the story of Adam and Eve symbolically, emphasizing how knowledge of good and evil might require experiential learning rather than merely following divine commands. This interpretation doesn’t dismiss the story's significance but instead invites deeper reflection on how morality develops.

Backing away from the discussion because it doesn’t adhere to a strict historical reading of the Bible suggests a lack of further critique to offer. A more honest and respectful approach would be to either engage with the critique as it stands or acknowledge its validity. Bowing out gracefully is always an option, but it’s important to do so without dismissing the conversation's merit simply because it ventures beyond a literal reading of Biblical stories.

Ultimately, the goal of the discussion is to explore moral concepts, not to enforce belief in a particular historical narrative. Acknowledging this allows for a more fruitful and respectful exchange of ideas.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #155]

And I’ve shared the reasons behind my disagreements with your conclusions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #155]

And I’ve shared the reasons behind my disagreements with your conclusions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine.

The reasons you shared didn't successfully demonstrate how your argument resolves the subjectivity problem. Do you have an explanation for the argument's failure produce an objective purpose or objective morality that is less arbitrary than a subjective purpose or a subjective morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #155]

And I’ve shared the reasons behind my disagreements with your conclusions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine.

The reasons you shared didn't successfully demonstrate how your argument resolves the subjectivity problem. Do you have an explanation for the argument's failure produce an objective purpose or objective morality that is less arbitrary than a subjective purpose or a subjective morality?

That's the second miserable attempt to escape the take down I've answered today, together with some miserable denial. Namely to pretend you have already answered (imply dismissed) the argument. You haven't even addressed it even if you understood it. Your demand for an objective morality is futile, pointless and misconceived, and the only question (usual one) is whether you don't understand it or you do or are pretending u you don't to keep the debate going.

There seems no credible reason to think that morality can be objective, either as monolithic truths, like laws of physics, a solid human conclusion or a divine diktat from a god.

The better case and one you haven's addressed, never mind dismissed, even if you comprehended it, is that morality is always debatable, changing, relative and evolving, and the go - to reason why is because humans devised it, as they devised the ethical game - play to solve the problem of evolving society. But it is no less valid because devised by humans as is music, language or sporting rules.

I am sure we did this before. but we do it now, and you should make an effort to understand, as I know you are very smart, and only God and Biblefaith is stopping you accepting a biologically evolved instinctive solving of a social problem (at least as a valid hypothesis) , and neither a god - given diktat for a cosmic law of moral physics, which are far less probable.

Unpleasant though it may seem, Morals apologetics failed as bad as Anselm's Ontological argument, Lane Craig's kalamitous apologetic, and Pascal's wager, whether you try to make it a philosophical abstraction or an apologetic for god.

So you are a Mod here, in a position that should be respected. It deserves better than denial and grubby tricks. I am not trying to rob you but to help you. I can see you are trapped in the Faith -bubble where an objective truth (goddunnit - morals, Life and everything) is assumed as necessary as well as true.

But you have to give up the ring. I know you love it, but it is destroying your credibility, as it destroys all those who try to defend Christianity, God and the Bible with any of those wretched and debunked tatty old apologetics.

[bluegreenearth]

Gospel Focus - Sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ through Social Networking and Multimedia Ministry.Get Good News working in your life! The Gospel Focus will teach you how the Good News of Jesus Christ will change your life forever.

Because you are new here and are apparently unfamiliar with the rules, I'll provide this opportunity for you to read the Guidelines of this subforum before one of Mods officially pounces on you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #170]

Yes. Preaching is not the aim here, though Biblical apologetics often comes close - slinging wads of Bibleterxt at us as though it proves something. It is a very strange mindset for anyone who has always looked for best argument even before atheism made Such A Difference To My Life, and efforts to be rational and evidence - based were moulded by learning critical thinking.

Possibly the apologists for Jesus think I'm arguing for the Atheist Religion No, I need money first. While I'm here, scientifically validated evidence and logically sound reasoning is what I do. There is no other reward here but getting as near to the truth as possible

So at long last we get to the point. Morals. First let me rehearse a clip i posted and my explanation or hypothesis which was not refuted, or was at least ignored.



My answer was this; baby, every time. Why? Because it is a common instinct that drives us to do that. women and children first (1). Treasure or survival. We are hard - wired to save the baby and all the other pilpul dickering is irrelevant.

And that's the point. The ethical dickering is philosophical play, irrelevant to real life and Biology, dudes; and they can play their navel gazing philosophical games in their philosophical solitary cell, but it has no place in apologetics arguments on a religious debate forum.

I won't labor that point, but compare it in passing to a long discussion on substance dualism on my Other forum and how, shockingly, the philosophers for Dulalism (even if that didn't mean 'supernatural entity' in their heads) used flawed reasoning to set up their theories. For example, Chalmer's zombies. You have a human and an exact replica (zombie) but lacking perception - reaction. What element is missing? (it is some mythical perception - particle..begins with an i, can't recall it) but the thing is that a nanoperfect replica will have the same set of atavistic memories and instincts. As I told GayLen, if the robot by the waterfall doesn't feel fear, it is because he hasn't evolved and lacks the survival instincts. But if he is a perfect replica down to the nano -particle, the robot will fear as much as a human.

I won't go through all the evasions, special pleading and logical fallacy ending up with appealing to Arostotle's principles of color and i pointed out that they all had imperceptible graduations to an indeterminate boundary and Aristotle didn't know what color actually was, and I left with a profound unease about philosophy. It was fine at asking questions, but needed science to find the answers. When Philosophy tries to make Philosophy act as a research - tool, it comes a cropper.

This is why Apologetics has no business to ignore or sideline biology and its' hypothetical explanation about where human morals and ethics come from, and there is no objective law of morals, and it is either philosophical game play with no relevance to the discussion, in which case get out of the kitchen, or it is done to try to make a god necessary, in which case, get out of the kitchen and take that jacket off.

Let me run a couple of other favorite conundrums past you

Does a leaf remain green in the absence of light?
Does a tree make a sound falling if nobody is there to hear it?
And Zeno's paradox - an arrow cannot move because, at any moment, it must be at rest.

The first two appear conundrums because they ignore what color and sound actually is. When you take science into account and not just play philosophical games, the answers become childishly simple. Just like Zeno's paradox, which resolves into a matter of semantics.

(1) sure, you can have an emotionless robot evaluation of benefit and loss. but that is nothing to do with Morals, which is based on human instinct.