Was sin necessary for knowledge?

[The Grand Nudger]

Dante provides an interesting prism on how christian thought had changed in the 1000 or so years since it's inception, how it differed from the hebrew concept of the same (in which the world needed to be repaired, no happy accident as far as they were concerned), but also how christian thought has since changed.  Milton sits alongside Dante providing literary representation of that cultural shift, in the character of Michael consoling a fallen adam by reference to what wonders will come.  The world, one day, he contends through the archangel...will be even better than eden was.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Just popping in to say that I’m impressed with the civility expressed by all sides. Well done.

Boru

[Angrboda]

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.

The only problem I would have with this is the idea that there exists such a thing as direct perception independent of interpretation. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” And that thought is underwritten by the observation that all observation is theory dependent, whether underdetermined by theory or not. One might argue that such things as direct qualitative experience such as the color red do not suffer this flaw, but that would simply be shifting the source of interpretation from conscious to unconscious processes and constraints. As Kant argued rather forcefully, our perceptions of the world are highly structured and not in any sense a mirror of reality. So unless Adam and Eve were some sort of alien species, I don't see this suggestion as particularly tenable, though in some quarters, notably modern pragmatism, it may carry some weight. But then again, that's just my interpretation of things.

[John V]

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. 

This reminded me of:

Rev 2
17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.

Maybe each person has a unique name connected with their essence.

[A Theist]

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.

Yes. True that it was said in regard to Christians. But I believe that in some points it can also be applied to sinners and backsliders.  God has commanded all to repent, and that command is not beyond ability of everyone to obey...as was said in another place, (I John), his commandments are not grievous. 

Acts 17:30-31 

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

In that regard, God hasn't laid an impossible burden on the backs of humankind when He commanded all to repent.

[tackattack]

[quote pid='1850872' dateline='1542409424']
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.

[/quote]
I respectfully ask for a clarification on this point. Since I can assume you're catholic, would you define sin as needing either full knowledge, deliberate consent or the act is objectively and intrinsically immoral as defined in the catechism? These would be Mortal sins and Venial sins. Both are actions and not what I read in the original post. I thought we were attempting to nail down a definition for the noun sin. I believe sin (n.) exists outside of people but is dependent on actions of people as it is a choice against an objective moral authority.

We can use insane people, or puppies or babies if that makes the discussion more emotive, feel free to interchange them. I believe that someone can act intentionally against God, without full knowledge and it be objectively immoral, and it is still a sin.

ie. - sociopath/insane/baby/puppy decides to just randomly slit a stranger's throat. It was deliberate in the moment, but they were delusional at the time (didn't understand societies view for puppies and babies) so no full knowledge, and murder is intrinsically immoral.  Under my definition it would be a sin. I don't believe it would be under the catholic catechism. I'm curious as to the general atheistic and agnostic thought on punishment/culpability.

Just so this is not a derailing, has the consensus to the OP agreed that sin is not necessary for knowledge?

[The Grand Nudger]

With a few non orthodox caveats specific to late medieval and early ren christian thought (and the classical hellenic foundations from which they were derived) that does seem to be the consensus.  

As far as the other question....and stating upfront that I find it problematic to reduce the christian notion of sin to something like simple fealty....I do think that knowledge is a requirement for sin, and insomuch as this knowledge is not present sin, then, would not be possible.  That, for example...one could do some action x and be sinful if it is done with knowledge, and not sinful..... done in absence of that knowledge. We routinely make allowance for agency (and impaired or otherwise deficient agency) when considering moral desert. The toddler who finds his daddys gun and blows his playmates head off is niether charged as an adult, nor for murder or manslaughter. The responsible party, as commonly conceived, is actually the adult that created such a situation in the first place. This, too..has parallels in what culpability god has for sin, and we find that represented in the thematic elements of the OT narrative, a narrative not conceived of with christian eschatology in mind.

[tackattack]

Then we should really qualify knowledge. Let's agree for this arguments sake that murder is a sin by the generalist definition of sin. Is there any time when a murder could not be sin? The problem is murder is, by definition, premeditated killing. So you have intent at the minimum required for this particular sin. justifiable homicide would still have the intent and in my eyes would still be a sin. Could I get a catholic opinion on justifiable homicide. Does it qualify as a venial (or minor) sin though, even though it has intent and is objectively immoral? While more socially acceptable and intrinsically immoral by societal standards, I think most here would agree that justifiable homicide isn't "bad". Good or bad is a personal/societal moral barometer and that's how a lot of people define sin. I don't believe anyone goes to hell for acting "bad" or heaven for acting "good".

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, as far as our discussion goes 'd say that knowledge would be some awareness of the nature of the act and it's consequences.  One of my favorite lines in all of the OT comes directly after the narrative of the fall.  The (in)famous "Am I my brothers keeper?".  

Consider a world which had never tasted death.  How, then, should a person know what it would mean to bludgeon their brother?  How, indeed, should he have even known where his brother had gone?  It's unclear how cain could have acquired such knowledge necessary for this act to be sinful, regardless of whether it was murder.... except for the earlier narrative conceit of the fruit which conferred it, and it having somehow been passed from his father to himself.

[tackattack]

Well, as far as our discussion goes 'd say that knowledge would be some awareness of the nature of the act and it's consequences.  One of my favorite lines in all of the OT comes directly after the narrative of the fall.  The (in)famous "Am I my brothers keeper?".  

Consider a world which had never tasted death.  How, then, should a person know what it would mean to bludgeon their brother?  How, indeed, should he have even known where his brother had gone?  It's unclear how cain could have acquired such knowledge necessary for this act to be sinful, regardless of whether it was murder.... except for the earlier narrative conceit of the fruit which conferred it, and it having somehow been passed from his father to himself.

I disagree with that particular example as a basis for judging sinfulness. One could argue it's before the noahic covenant. Could you define a more contemporary example of your logic if mine doesn't suffice for you? Is there a particular problem with my puppy/baby example?