Was sin necessary for knowledge?

[Catholic_Lady]

I think it's the other way around as Khem has been saying. Without moral knowledge, "sin" becomes impossible.

I personally find meaning in the Adam and Eve story when interpreted in the way CL has done above. When we evolved to have enough intelligence to distinguish moral and immoral behavior, we then became morally responsible.

That would entirely depend on your definition of sin and morality. If you define sin as: what is morally wrong to my person, then a moral knowledge would be necessary. I do not define sin that way so I disagree and we have not discussed morality

Do you define morality as having conscience or remorse for perceived wrongdoing?
If you do, by CL and your definition: Socipaths couldn't sin because they have no moral knowledge

I'm open to persuasion though.

I think sociopaths do have moral knowledge, they just don't care.

As for insanity, I do think that a person who is insane enough may not be culpable for their immoral action, and so is not guilty of sinning.

Sin requires wrongful action AND moral culpability.

[The Grand Nudger]

Further highlighting the problems with trying to make a determination on the basis of the the narrative of the fall.

On the one hand, we can reduce sin to an arbitrary fealty.  On the other, it's difficult to see how the first two humans in a sin free world, babes in paradise... could have been held to any standard of moral culpability for their actions.

---

There's a third way, ofc.  We can posit that the tree and the fruit and the dragon were all expedients used to refer to some urge or compulsion built within us by the creator.  Representations of chaotic evil common to ane mythologies, hence the selection of the dragon and the setting of the garden and the focal point of the fruit.

[vulcanlogician]

That would entirely depend on your definition of sin and morality. If you define sin as: what is morally wrong to my person, then a moral knowledge would be necessary. I do not define sin that way so I disagree and we have not discussed morality

Do you define morality as having conscience or remorse for perceived wrongdoing?
If you do, by CL and your definition: Socipaths couldn't sin because they have no moral knowledge

I'm open to persuasion though.

To keep things simple, I define immoral behavior as anything that is interpersonally destructive. There is a bit more nuance to my moral views, but that is good enough for the purposes of this conversation.

I would bring in the example of wild animals. I don't hold animals morally responsible for their actions. They operate on instinct; their capacity for reasoning is rudimentary compared to ours. They have no concept of right or wrong.

As far as "sin" goes, that word can mean a hodge-podge of different things. It is hopelessly entwined with the concept of morality, but also encapsulates many Judeo-Christian cultural mores-- many of which have little to do with morality. Even in the Bible, "sin" can refer to a transgression against the Law or (as Paul would have it) pretty much everything a human being does before he/she embraces Christ as their savior.

I think Adam and Eve says something poignant about our being "cursed" to be morally responsible agents. As far as "sin" goes, aside from the moral element, it's pretty much a meaningless concept to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever else the author intended to convey, they certainly conveyed that.  We went, in the space of a chapter, from naked innocents playing in an idyllic wonderland...to a man and a wife with a grueling job and parental responsibilities, expelled from the house of their father.

What was in that apple, right?

[vulcanlogician]

We went, in the space of a chapter, from naked innocents playing in an idyllic wonderland...to a man and a wife with a grueling job and parental responsibilities, expelled from the house of their father.

What was in that apple...?

Cocaine?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, they're were found hiding in the bushes, ashamed, and suddenly aware of the impropriety of their nakedness.  Adam was cursed to work, Eve to produce a child in pain.  The sexual undercurrent of the entire narrative is unmistakeable.

Even better than coke (but that's just my personal opinion)

---

In this, it's a brilliantly competent double entendre.  A just so story of human origins that mimics the just so situation of humans in the then-present.

[Angrboda]

Just a drive-by, but it occurs to me after a quick read through the discussion that the relationship between sin and knowledge may be a paradox that is not resolvable no matter which conventional take you impose on the matter. I strongly suspect there is a fundamental incoherence in the narrative under all the traditional interpretations. But then, I have only given it cursory thought. It's well known that under certain interpretations of sin and knowledge, the narrative is incoherent. The question is, is it incoherent under all of them?

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no way to make the narrative fully coherent (specifically with respect to all that is later claimed vis-a-vis sin and knowledge), but this is not a problem for the narrative.  It wasn't meant to be a treatise on the nature of good and evil, nor was it conceptualized as a news report from the ancient front.  That was a later wrinkle. It's a just so story, it gets the ball rolling by talking us from dreamtime to the then-present.

[Belacqua]

Note that they don't just get knowledge of evil through sinning - they get knowledge of both good and evil, even though they hadn't done good.

There's a nicely worked-out view of this that maybe isn't exactly mainstream. It appeals to me, though, and it's the interpretation that Dante uses in his Purgatorio -- so it has a pretty good pedigree. 

First, the idea is that Adam could name the animals even though he didn't have knowledge of them. The idea is that in the pre-Fall state, Adam could perceive directly the essence of each creature. Today the names we have for animals are only contingent, so "cat" in English and 猫 in Japanese are just labels chosen more or less at random. But the name Adam gave to that creature is intrinsically connected with the essence of the animal -- to its cat-ness. 

Now here I may be using "knowledge" a little bit differently than usual. Normally knowledge is justified true belief. But in the case of Adam and language, knowledge means something conceptual. In this sense, having knowledge doesn't mean that he lacks direct perception of the essence of the thing. It means that he lacks the mental concept -- the ability or the need to interpret, analyze, and consider the thing. If we could directly perceive the thing itself, in this view, conceptual knowledge would be superfluous. 

Likewise, knowledge of good and evil is the same. 

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were without sin. In Dante's view, sin is not a breaking of rules. It is misdirected desire. This may well be more Greek than Hebrew, but it is well soaked into Christian theology. God is the Good. Without sin -- that is, without misdirected desire -- we naturally want only the Good. We don't have to think about it. 

This is clear at the top of Purgatory, after Dante the character has been cleaned of all sin. At that point, his guide tells him that he should just do whatever he wants. Without the misdirection that sin gives, all spontaneous desire will be properly aimed to the Good. 

So here, too, Adam and Eve don't need knowledge of good and evil because they don't need to conceptualize it, analyze it, or interpret it. They have no need to think about it, because they just naturally do it. When the serpent gets them to sin, they mess up this natural and perfect guide. Suddenly they have the potential to choose badly, to misunderstand, to aim badly, or to lack enthusiasm for what is really good. Instead of instinct they have knowledge. 

You're familiar with the concept of the felix culpa, right? The "happy fault"? A lot of Christians have thought that it is better for us in the long run to have knowledge of good and evil rather than an unthinking direction, even though it causes hardship along the way. They say we are only fully grown up when we go through the struggle of thinking and choosing. So in the long run, Adam and Eve's knowledge was God's plan and better than not having it.

[John V]

In the New Testament, the Bible says in one place, (I Corinthians 10:13), that God is faithful who will not permit us to be tempted above our ability to bear.

Yes, but this was said about Christians who had received the Holy Spirit. Personally I wouldn't assume that it applies to all people.

---

Ultimately, though, the problem lies more with the composite narrative than with yourself.  You, as a person of a specific type of faith..simply have to make choices between the various suboptimal and contradictory paths from one part of the story to the next.   There's little else -to- do but throw up ones hands and wish that the authors had done a better job.

Bye-bye

---

It's hard for me to answer this because I don't adhere to the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. I think we evolved from apes, and at some point we became intelligent enough to understand right from wrong. That is when sin became a thing. So on the contrary I would say knowledge is necessary for sin. Animals are innocent because they don't have knowledge of good and evil and therefore cannot sin. We evolved from animals. At one point we couldn't sin, but as we became more intelligent, we obtained moral culpability and thus the ability to sin.  

Gen 9
5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

---

I think it's the other way around as Khem has been saying. Without moral knowledge, "sin" becomes impossible.

Maybe, but that wasn't the question.

---

Note that they don't just get knowledge of evil through sinning - they get knowledge of both good and evil, even though they hadn't done good.

There's a nicely worked-out view of this that maybe isn't exactly mainstream. It appeals to me, though, and it's the interpretation that Dante uses in his Purgatorio -- so it has a pretty good pedigree. 

First, the idea is that Adam could name the animals even though he didn't have knowledge of them. The idea is that in the pre-Fall state, Adam could perceive directly the essence of each creature. Today the names we have for animals are only contingent, so "cat" in English and 猫 in Japanese are just labels chosen more or less at random. But the name Adam gave to that creature is intrinsically connected with the essence of the animal -- to its cat-ness. 

Now here I may be using "knowledge" a little bit differently than usual. Normally knowledge is justified true belief. But in the case of Adam and language, knowledge means something conceptual. In this sense, having knowledge doesn't mean that he lacks direct perception of the essence of the thing. It means that he lacks the mental concept -- the ability or the need to interpret, analyze, and consider the thing. If we could directly perceive the thing itself, in this view, conceptual knowledge would be superfluous. 

Likewise, knowledge of good and evil is the same. 

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were without sin. In Dante's view, sin is not a breaking of rules. It is misdirected desire. This may well be more Greek than Hebrew, but it is well soaked into Christian theology. God is the Good. Without sin -- that is, without misdirected desire -- we naturally want only the Good. We don't have to think about it. 

This is clear at the top of Purgatory, after Dante the character has been cleaned of all sin. At that point, his guide tells him that he should just do whatever he wants. Without the misdirection that sin gives, all spontaneous desire will be properly aimed to the Good. 

So here, too, Adam and Eve don't need knowledge of good and evil because they don't need to conceptualize it, analyze it, or interpret it. They have no need to think about it, because they just naturally do it. When the serpent gets them to sin, they mess up this natural and perfect guide. Suddenly they have the potential to choose badly, to misunderstand, to aim badly, or to lack enthusiasm for what is really good. Instead of instinct they have knowledge. 

You're familiar with the concept of the felix culpa, right? The "happy fault"? A lot of Christians have thought that it is better for us in the long run to have knowledge of good and evil rather than an unthinking direction, even though it causes hardship along the way. They say we are only fully grown up when we go through the struggle of thinking and choosing. So in the long run, Adam and Eve's knowledge was God's plan and better than not having it.

That's the best post I've seen on this forum in a long time. I have to think about it for awhile, but wanted to give credit where it's due.

Liking this new section so far!