Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Was Evil Possible Before Adam and Eve?
It sure seems that way to me.
The text says that G-d created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:9). Which means the possibility of evil existed before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
I was thinking about this after a recent kerfuffle on Ricochet about whether G-d is capable of doing or being evil, and it occurred to me that the common religious belief that G-d can ONLY be good seems to be clearly contradicted by the text itself. He made the world. Some He calls “Good.” Some, He does not.
I might qualify the above by pointing out that in the Torah both “Good” and “Evil” are not really things in themselves: they are judgements, created by and subject to the perceptions of the viewer. And if this is the case, then the assessment of both good and evil come down to our own mental breadth and faculties. An animal knows nothing of either. But thanks to eating the fruit, both G-d and Man are able to make judgements accordingly.
In sum: the concept of evil did not rely on sin.
Published in General
This doesn’t appear correct to me. What translation are you using?
The various translations of Genesis 1 have the following last verse (verse 31, my emphasis): “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” That’s the ESV translation, but all of the others that I scanned at Bible Hub say essentially the same thing.
It is correct that there is not an interjection, after each individual act of creation, stating that such creation was good. The pronouncements that the created things were good does not, for example, come immediately after the creation of day or night (day 1), or the creation of the sky (day 2). It is mentioned on day 3, twice, both at the creation of the land and the creation of the plants.
The creations of day 4 (heavenly bodies) and 6 (land animals), are noted as being good, while the creation of the birds and sea creatures on day 5 is not specifically described as good in that part of the text.
But it all wraps up with verse 31, doesn’t it? God declares that “all” that he had made was “very good.”
Why would you deduce, from this, that some of the original Creation was not good? It seems to me that this interpretation flatly contradicts the final verse of the chapter.
There may actually be a lesson here — be cautious about drawing conclusions from omission.
Which leads to my next disagreement:
It does appear true that the word for “sin” is first used in the story of Cain, but why would you think that this means that eating the fruit was not a sin. If “sin” implies a defied commandment, you seem to be reaching the wrong conclusions about both the eating of the fruit and Cain’s murder of Abel. God did command Adam not to eat the fruit — but I don’t see anything before the account of Cain and Abel in which God commanded anyone not to murder.
For the record, I think that they are both sins. I simply don’t think that your textual analysis and interpretation is correct on these issues.
The answer would be, “Did you see how hot Eve is?”
There’s something to be said for the concept of authority or domain over the earth, which it is said was given to Adam, so while satan may have rebelled from God as little as an hour earlier, the effects of sin over the earth, were from Adam’s sin.
Also Eve was told by Adam not to eat the fruit, and Adam was relaying God’s command.
It was not good for creation to be incomplete.
Lots of philosophy and theology talk about that. Going back millennia. Here’s an intro.
To which one replies: “Geez, Grampa, you’re talking about my grandmother!”
Eve was still very, very hot! (And genetically perfect.) Even in mankind’s deteriorated state, women are still hot. (But I hope you’re not implying that eating the fruit is a metaphor for having sex. After all, they were told to go forth and multiply.)
I am not so implying. Sex is good.
Not to get away from the original question too much, but
I sense some legalism here in some arguments: “sin is disobeying a command or commandment.” I tend to believe that sin, in general, is more than specific events. Rather it is living one’s life in a way that does not bring glory and honor to God. And while “living in sin” may be a specific euphemism, it is still a representation of a state of being, not an endless list of charges. Therefore, sin does still require an actor to make a choice.
I was just recalling today how, when I was growing up, I was not one to get into the “well you didn’t say I couldn’t do this” nonsense with my parents. _I_ recognized early on that my parents would not accept Dishonesty, Disobedience, or Disrespect.
I think that is because they were, nay , ARE, guided by this:
from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=NIV
I tend to believe that if there is a God, there exists the antithesis, and that is Evil. It doesn’t require Adam and Eve. The presence of the “serpent” , the representation of evil, implies an existence before them.
Nah, I’m implying that men do stupid things for women.
Oh, goody. Malum in se vs malum prohibitum, and is there such a thing as natural law (or reasonable facsimile) or not? Part 6.023 bazillion.
What if morality is a physical entity? The apparent conceptual grounding of the Old Testament is a vitalistic monism. That would suggest that what is called evil or good has physical consequences, somehow akin to Newtonian mechanics. F=MA. The electric charge of the Universe is Zero. Perhaps the moral charge of the Universe must also be zero. Of course, an electric charge implies its opposite. Good and Evil imply each other. Are magnetic monopoles possible? That is an unanswered question. Are moral monopoles possible? Why are physical sacrifices required in the Old Testament for expiation of sin? Why is the physicalsuffering and death of God made Flesh required in the New Testament for the ultimate expiation of human evil? Why are we told to honor our father and mother that our days may be long upon the earth? What does honoring parents have to do with longevity? Why is one commanded to remove ones shoes when on holy ground? Why were the commandments written on stone tablets? Does not the physical intertwine with the moral? Does not the moral affect the physical? Does not the physical affect the moral? Are they not inseparable? Are they not one? Being per se is good. The opposite, nonexistence, is not good. Virtue is that which produces life and allows it to most flourish. God is the source of all virtue, because God is the source of all physical life and being.
Yes, I had the same aversion to legalism.
Legalism is very broadly obeying the letter of the law and not its spirit. And also there are different kinds of sin: of the heart and of the hand, so to speak. But only one kind upon which we will be judged: actions. We will be judged by our works.
Let me say that even as a Christian all my life I didn’t really know was sin was. I asked a lot of people who should know and I got a lot of “sin means missing the mark” and “sin is falling short of the glory of God” and such, but no real definitive answer.
For example, I knew that sin can be committed in the heart alone (such as adultery) but it seemed to me that God only judged sin according to actions. And even though Jesus will turn away people who have done good and spiritual things, His rejection is more fundamental but still dependent on works: “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'”
And yet as far as deeds go, salvation is not by works, yet by belief: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
On the other hand those who don’t believe in him, we will be judged by their works. Rev. 20:12. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.”
And then one day I was reading a verse that I had read many times before and the cloud of confusion disappeared (I’m a very slow learner). 1 John 3:4 “Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.” Sin is when all is said and done, spiritual lawlessness. It is legal. It is spiritual criminality.
I think the predominance of all this shows that although there is inward sin, and not believing in God, and not loving God, and not loving one’s neighbor as one should, the ultimate Judgment comes according to unlawful outward works. (And the ultimate salvation comes from inward belief.)
There’s more that I can say, but 500 words, and this pretty well encompasses my thoughts.
I’ll certainly agree with this.
I don’t see how it could be any more than, for example, a Beethoven symphony could be the same thing as a bowl of oatmeal. They’re completely different categories.
There’s a lot in your comment I’m not following. For a start, what is vitalistic monism?
I’ve always suspected that there is a moral substrate to the universe. Sort of like the old physical ether (which I think actually does exist: the compactified extra dimensions called Calabi-Yau shapes on a scale of a Planck length apart).
Well, maybe I can interest you in something from Augustine.
But a physical moral substrate? I don’t understand how those things can be the same thing. Morality and matter are not even the same kind of thing.
I’d be interested in Augustine’s view. (I lost the one book of his that I had.)
No, I meant a (superior?) spiritual substrate for the universe, like the physical universe seems to have a physical substrate, and the spiritual existing in simultaneously throughout creation with the (inferior?) physical (but likely extending beyond it). It’s how I originally addressed Nanocelt’s initial comments of spiritual things having an impact on the the physical.
The spiritual clearly has an impact on the physical, but I haven’t really considered how the physical would affect the spiritual; but it does seem to in certain areas of activity.
NewAdvent.org has a decent free translation of On the Nature of Goodness / On the Nature of Good. Chapter 2 of my more expensive Augustine book introduces it. I might be able to find a short YouTube intro I did, if I did one. (I probably did.)
Oh, very good! Physical substance, non-physical substance, and connections between them! I agree.
Morality is like math. Two and two equal four. It is a concept, a truth, immutable. Some mathematicians and physicists quibble that you can make two and two equal some other number, but that is changing the convention, a matter of mathematical semantics. The truth is that 2+2=4 is an idea.
Morality is an idea. It is a truth. It is the role of civilization to attempt to understand that truth. The degree to which we observe truth accurately is usually a measure of the civilization’s vitality. No civilization is completely accurate, and rarely consistent across the civilization, but not attaining an accurate view of morality doesn’t mean that there isn’t an ideal morality.
One very successful attempt to come to that accurate understanding of morality was the development of the common law by the English speaking people of the world. (I don’t know of any non-English speaking nations participating.) It’s a shame we have nearly abandoned it, but all moral systems eventually become corrupt. We must continually renew our approach to ward off eventual corruption.
A is A. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Morality is black and white. Where we see gray is only our inability to perceive the discrete truths (pixelization, if you will) from our vantage. The truth of morality exists as surely as 2+2=4.
I understand your view, but I disagree with some of it. I do strongly suspect that a word spoken alone changes things 10,000 miles away. I believe it’s the moral structure of the universe. Most people don’t believe most of what they say, and this greatly minimizes, negates alters or even inverts the effect, but I do think it exists.
Sin started with the earth. It was commanded to bring forth a tree whose wood tasted like its fruit but instead produced a tree with inedible wood.
Thus the idea of the means justifying the ends was born whereas the Divine commandment (and ultimate redemption) will be realized when the means are just as sweet as the ends.
Evil existed a zeptosecond after the Big Bang, inasmuch as there was now a realm in which evil was possible. If it is possible, it is likely. If it is likely, it exists.
When we start talking about the Big Bang, where they say laws of physics as we understand them currently, do no apply, I tend to tread softly. I suspect the theory is helpful, but needs a lot of refinement. Regardless, concepts still exist, independent of time or space. I suppose this is sort of like the question, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is of course it makes the requisite vibrations, but the answer depends on the definition of sound. If “sound” means the mental perception of a being interpreting the vibrations, then it makes no sound. If sound is the vibration itself, then of course it makes the sound.
Likewise, truth and ideas exist absent time and space. When all time and space is a singularity (a proposal I find difficult to comprehend and I resist accepting, but will accept for this argument) then does “two” exist? Yes. The idea of two exists. Much like the vibration of the tree, an idea need not reside in the mind of a being to exist. Likewise, truth and morality exist as concepts even at the singularity.
More specifically, a materialist vitalistic monism. Monism as compared to dualism, in the Cartesian sense. There is only one thing, and that is material (compare a vedantic monism that there is nothing material, all is mind). Vitalistic, that material is imbued with animism, animistic, to modern sensibilities a completely discredited ancient mythic sense of animism existing in inanimate matter.
Morality implies consciousness. What is consciousness? Is consciousness material? “Science” such as it is, tells us that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and an illusion (Dennett). That of course implies that there is no morality. That morality itself is an arbitrary epiphenomena, which is what modernist and post modernist philosophies assume. What if that is incorrect? I assert that the experience of Consciousness is underpinned by a material consciousness quantum field (the constitutive entity necessary for the evolution of consciousness, the emergent phenomenon, as the vertebrate eye evolved to utilize the electromagnetic spectrum). This would by extension imply that Morality is underpinned by physical reality and that there is an inherent morality in the Universe that is physically part of the Universe. Unavoidably. And it is not arbitrary. And it is most extensively expostulated in Judeo/Christian theology.
Kuyper was much more correct than I think he ever realized.
Well, I expect Kuyper was indeed correct.
But I’m not following much of this.
All is matter, and all matter is imbued with life in such a way that some of it creates consciousness, which in turn is the ground of morality?
Remember, human conscious observation directly induces the collapse of the wave equation in Quantum processes. Conscious observation changes the behavior of quantum physical systems. Mind directly affects material processes. How does that happen? This is the nature of quantum mechanics, which Shrodinger didn’t like, Einstein didn’t like, and Bohr essentially expelled from polite conversation among physicists. And Quantum processes underpin reality (note the Quantum no Xerox rule–reality is one thing, can’t be duplicated or changed). I argue that mind is a physical entity, via a Consciousness Field, manifest by a fundamental particle (as the photon manifests the electromagnetic field).
Exactly. Only all too often we have to go to a level of advanced partial differential equations to try and get at an understanding, and that will also fall short. As in all things, our understanding will not reach to the ultimate truth, but can help get us closer to it. Our reach will always exceed our grasp, but that’s what heavens for, to cite Browning.
But then, at times, we have the prophets, who access the infinite directly, and try to tell us about it. And we have the Son of God, the Word made Flesh, the Logos, who manifest truth and reality to us. And too often we see the light, but do not comprehend it.
Yes. Only the “qualia” of consciousness is not explained. Only suggested. But the connectedness of consciousness, and it’s role in the material world, is. And it’s role in what is considered religion, (which I consider to be everything, as Kuyper explains it) is also illuminated. Matter and Spirit become different aspects of the same thing. In such a Universe, morality inheres. Consciousness and morality become fundamental characteristics of the material Universe. Not epiphenomena or illusions. As real as the bedrock under Manhattan. Inseparable from the cosmos, which without them, does not exist. Can not exist.