The problem of evil is a common objection to Christianity and with some good reason. I would even admit that certain evils in the world seem to me to amount to some evidence against the Christian God. But I think the evidence can be shown to be fairly weak when looked at logically and with the aid of scripture.
When explaining my view on this problem I always start with this question: Does God’s omnipotence mean he can violate the rules of logic? If we answer yes then a the problem of evil is not a problem for God because it is a logical problem – and he is not bound by logic. So let’s say that “omnipotence” of God means something short of breaking the laws of logic. Once we understand God is so constrained then we see cracks form in the problem of evil.
Knowledge can’t be good and not good.
Ignorance can’t be bad and not bad.
God can’t have us know what evil is and not know what evil is.
God can’t let us be ignorant of evil and not be ignorant of evil.
We can’t know what the consequences of evil are, if there is no evil to be found.
If suffering is the result of evil then can we really know what evil is unless we know the experience of suffering?
So can we know the experience of suffering without experiencing suffering?
And what about the results of good which often are the opposites of suffering – peace, joy etc.? (there seems no clear cut antonym for all the different aspects of suffering) Can we know what they are when we don’t understand the opposite? Can we know what it means to be taller or as tall as without also having an idea of shorter (or not as tall as)? It seems to me we can’t know these states without knowing something of the opposites. I can’t understand heat unless I have some concept of lack of heat, i.e., cold.
So if we think Knowledge is good then we might agree that even knowledge of evil is good. Even if this good is logically linked to our experience of evil. Now we may think well the good of knowing evil does not outweigh all the suffering evil brings. God seems to agree. But nevertheless we would still have to say knowledge is itself a good. And if we think it is good to allow us to experience all goods then we can’t exclude some goods. So it does seem there are logical restraints that means some goods entail evil.
So what does this have to do with scripture?
What was that tree God forbade Adam and Eve the fruit of? Was it an apple tree or a pear tree? No, it was the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. In Genesis God commands “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:16-17. I mean at first that seems a very odd sort of tree, and not one I remember seeing at the arboretum. I think this should be a sign that the author of the story is not just telling us some literal event from history but is trying to make a different sort of statement about God. What does it even mean to taste the fruit that comes from the knowledge of evil? The fruit/result of knowing evil is, as we have said, suffering. Can we have knowledge of evil unless we know what it produces? I don’t think so because such knowledge would be warped. Some things that may be evil might sound pretty good if it weren’t for the suffering it caused. Knowing evil without knowing suffering is not really knowing evil. (“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” Genisis 3:6.)
Someone can’t know suffering without knowing suffering. If someone says I know what it is like to be burned over 80% of my body – well the only way he could know that is if he was so burned or at least had that experience. If he didn’t we would say no you actually don’t “know” that kind of suffering.
But this was our decision – not God’s. He wanted to save us from this fruit. Are we to think the author just randomly chose the name for that tree or is the author inviting the reader to explore a very deep philosophical issue? What is “the fruit” of knowing good and evil that we wanted to taste? When people are so caught up in literal readings that they argue whether the fruit was a pear or an apple my stomach sinks. They are missing so much.
The text invites us to explore deep ideas about our experiences here in this life and our situation existing in this world as we do. How can we know good and evil without knowing evil? And how can we know evil if we can’t experience it? And how can we experience something that is nowhere to be seen? So the fruit of knowledge of good and evil implies the experience of evil. But the Bible expresses that God did not want this for us. But he also wanted us to be free.
God is portrayed as our parent who loves us. Every parent understands this tension between wanting our children to avoid pain but also allow them to choose their own path. Don’t go down that path, but recognizing there is value in letting us learn so giving us autonomy.
We can’t have freedom and not have freedom.
Freedom can’t be good and not be good at the same time.
God can’t have us overcome adversity without us overcoming adversity.
We can’t over come adversity if there is no adversity
Overcoming adversity can’t be good and not good.
We cannot experience all that is good if we can never experience certain goods.
I can go on and on with logical constraints that imply evil is required for some goods.
But isn’t God overdoing it with all the evil in the world? In other words we might agree we have to experience some evil and suffering to have certain goods but why so much suffering? Couldn’t God have done it better? So how should it have been done? Well we should expect the suffering should be a finite time. And of course all our lives are indeed finite – that is we die. And indeed scripture explains that our life is finite – because we chose to taste the fruit of the tree.
“22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” Genesis 3:22-24
Beautiful language expressing that God knew it was best we not live forever in this state that the fruits of this knowledge would bring to us. God knew that knowledge of good and evil would entail suffering. Is it a coincidence that death was brought into the world at that time? Some would say God having death enter the world at that time is really a punishment. I think the opposite. He is helping us with the mess we got ourselves in. Making our suffering here finite is the most loving thing to do. It is only after the time that we chose to know good and evil that God prevents them from living forever.
Isn’t that what we would do for those we love. We would say ok I don’t want you to go down that path because it will cause pain. But if you choose that path of pain, then you will learn, but we would try to limit the pain. And then we would make our own sacrifices to help those we love get out of the rut and back on the path where evil and its fruit (suffering) is avoided. Moreover we would want the benefits of our knowledge to be used. Good and loving relationships can be better appreciated thanks to this knowledge. That is the story of God and humanity in a nutshell.
I am reminded of a friend in college who said to get a good grade just read the first and last chapters of the book to get the overall point and then memorize a few facts in the middle that you can throw in your test or paper to impress the teacher. This is close. Jumping from the first 3 chapters of Genesis and then reading a Gospel will give you a decent idea of Christianity.
Two final notes:
Scripture is not saying knowledge is to be avoided. Remember the metaphor of a tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the *only* tree we were forbidden to eat from. “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genisis 2. So only the tree that allows us to know these particular opposites was off limits. This suggests that any other sort of knowledge (science history etc.) would be good and not have a negative trade off. It is only this particular tree of knowledge that is off limits. That fruit logically had to be packed in a can of worms. Not necessarily the fruits of other knowledge.
Also, notice that God warns of the actions he will take – that they will die. However, he does not go into detail about why he will take that action or why knowledge of Good and evil will cause so many problems. Of course, for any such considerations to be appropriately understood by them he would need to give them knowledge of good and evil – exactly that which he was trying to avoid.
True and Reasonable 
So you think it’s logically impossible for us to know evil without experiencing it? God couldn’t design us with that innate knowledge? Ironically, the Eden story you’re using seems to be suggesting the opposite – that man magically received this knowledge so that it is now innate.
Hi Travis thanks for posting I am always glad to read your thoughts.
I would say it seems logically impossible for us to know evil without experiencing suffering – suffering is the fruit of that knowledge. Suffering is logically entailed by having knowledge of evil.
Imagine you had no idea what suffering was. None. And you heard the story about the student who reported abuse and was dosed with flammables and burned for coming forward.
Now you have no idea of the suffering that is involved with being treated like that by your community not even to mention the direct suffering of being burned. Now someone can say well that was evil and they would be right, but would you really have knowledge of that evil without knowledge of the suffering involved? I mean if you didn’t have any clue about what suffering was you might just shrug and say “hmm ok if you say so. Is burning wood evil too?”
If you agree with what I said above then the question is can we know what suffering is without experiencing it at all? Again I think that is impossible. I mean suffering can be described in words but the words would not refer to anything you would know or recognize. Without having the experience to link the words to, the words would either be thought to refer to something that was not actually suffering, or they would just be gibberish.
“God couldn’t design us with that innate knowledge? Ironically, the Eden story you’re using seems to be suggesting the opposite – that man magically received this knowledge so that it is now innate.”
Again I don’t see how he could have us designed with innate knowledge of suffering without actually having the experience of suffering.
As for what you say about the passage I think you are again reading it too literally. I don’t see the story of Adam and Eve as a historical account of 2 people who actually walked around and did things.
Like so many books of the bible it gives us a wise response but not the one we are looking for. We want answers to specific questions. The bible directs us to think. It offers new ways of thinking and reveals bits and pieces of God.
I am not sure knowledge of good and evil is innate until we taste the fruit of it. We do taste the fruit of evil – suffering very young. The Bible suggests that God was a loving God that would have preferred this not to be the case. But we wanted to know and so we can know.
I mean sure now we see that this is something we would rather not know and God was right. But if you didn’t know all that was entailed wouldn’t you want to know? I mean here is some knowledge others have but you are not supposed to know. And you have no idea what suffering even is. All the knowledge you have so far does not involve suffering. So why would you think “I shouldn’t know about that.” The snake would seem very convincing wouldn’t it?
What do you think?
Did you ever wonder why God prohibited the fruit of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”?
OK, imagine a person who understands evil because of experience. You’re telling me that an omnipotent God cannot independently instantiate in somebody all of the properties that person has which constitute the knowledge of evil? Experience can instantiate these properties, but God cannot?
You seem to be favoring a constructivist account of our moral sense. I think it is constructed to some degree, but that there are also innate elements to it. Anthropologists have identified many moral features that appear to be universal across populations. We may never perfectly untangle the nature \ nurture division here, but I think the blank slate is tough to defend.
“OK, imagine a person who understands evil because of experience. You’re telling me that an omnipotent God cannot independently instantiate in somebody all of the properties that person has which constitute the knowledge of evil? Experience can instantiate these properties, but God cannot?”
Many (not all) actions are evil because of the suffering they cause. That is the evil act logically requires suffering for it to be evil. If shooting a gun at someone’s back caused no more suffering than shooting a flashlight beam at someones back then it wouldn’t be evil.
So it would be impossible to understand those evils without understanding suffering. Its like saying I want knowledge of German Shepards but I can’t learn anything about dogs. Do you think God could do that? It seems logically impossible to me.
My other argument may not be as widely accepted but it still seems sound. Ei., to understand joy we must understand suffering. Do you think you can learn about heat without learning about lack of heat – cold? Do you think that analogy holds?
As far as me being a constructivist, I have been called worse, but I want to be clear. I do not think what makes us able to recognize (or know) what is evil makes it evil in the sense that if we didn’t know it was evil it wouldn’t be evil. I do not think evil is evil because I or some group/culture thinks it is evil or undesirable etc. (that is how I typically understand a moral constructivist but I am pretty sure you are not using it in that sense.) I do not think my statements here suggests I am a constructivist in that sense.
But yes I do think our experiences can be helpful or even essential to our *knowing* evil. And as far as understanding those evils that are evil because of the suffering they cause our experience is essential to our ability to know them.
I hope that reads better than scrambled eggs but if not I will try again.
I’m still curious what you make/made of the tree being “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
What do you think is special about the fruit of that knowledge that it would be separated out from other types of knowledge?
I don’t think your response gets to the heart of my question. I’ll ask it again in a way that also addresses your response so you can hopefully see what I mean. Imagine a person who understands evil and suffering because of their experience. That person’s knowledge of evil and suffering can be translated into a set of properties they now possess. You’re telling me that an omnipotent God cannot independently instantiate those properties? Experience can instantiate the properties, but God cannot?
As for your question about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I don’t recall having given it a lot of thought before. My immediate impression is that it is a myth intended to capture the origins of the human moral sense. The text implies that God did not want us to have this feature because it could be combined with the tree of life to achieve a divine nature. The moral sense is implicated in roughly 100% of social conflict, and since religion was the dominant scaffolding of social structure at the time, this was a particularly important etiology to the authors. It also highlights the inherent relationship between morality and the divine, emphasizing the role of religious authority over social conduct.
Travis:
“I don’t think your response gets to the heart of my question. I’ll ask it again in a way that also addresses your response so you can hopefully see what I mean. Imagine a person who understands evil and suffering because of their experience. That person’s knowledge of evil and suffering can be translated into a set of properties they now possess. You’re telling me that an omnipotent God cannot independently instantiate those properties? Experience can instantiate the properties, but God cannot?”
Joe:
Ok a few thoughts that might clarify what I am saying. “Knowing suffering” is by an large what might be called personal knowledge familiarity knowledge or acquaintance knowledge as distinct from the more commonly discussed propositional knowledge/descriptive knowledge. The acquaintance here is with a feeling or collection of feelings we label “suffering”.
To say I know the suffering involved with having third degree burns means you have experienced that suffering. If you did not experience that sort of suffering then we would say to do not know that suffering. Moreover suffering is in our mind. It is a mental thing.
So if I understand you are saying ok say someone had experiences of various types of suffering and so know it and know evil and here they are. Now can God just make that person as they are with those properties?
Ok but it would seem to me that those properties must include a memory of suffering that actually can cause suffering. That is the memory when invoked must cause some suffering. If suffering is no longer linked to the memory then I would say you forgot the suffering. You may remember you had an experience that you identified as suffering. But you have to remember the suffering and that means the suffering has to come to mind. It would be like saying I remember I had a conversation with a person but you forgot what the conversation was. In that case you do not know the conversation you just remember having one. I think in order to know suffering you have to remember the suffering not just remember that you had suffered but then be unable to reinvoke any sort of suffering.
If you are not now suffering then to the extent memory of suffering is weak or blunted or diluted then I would say your knowledge of suffering has those traits. If your memories of suffering acutely reinvoke suffering then your knowledge of that suffering is stronger. Likewise, my knowledge of certain evils is less to the extent my knowledge of the suffering involved is weaker or less acute. So we can talk about remote evils that have happened in history but to the extent I can’t invoke the suffering they caused I do not as fully understand the evil involved.
So God can instantiate people with these properties, but one of the properties will be a memory of suffering that truly invokes suffering. So God could not get around suffering if he wanted us to have knowledge of suffering and evil.
But lets say you disagree with what I said above. Let’s say you think someone can remember what suffering is without the ability to invoke suffering of any kind. I think this is impossible, but for the sake of argument let’s say that can happen. Then it would seem that we would want to have memories of suffering but presumably there was never actually any suffering that we felt. And we don’t feel any suffering now by remembering that suffering which helps us know what evil and suffering are. Again if you agree we need suffering then that kills the problem of evil. So the memory of the suffering would be a false memory.
Even if all that happened I think we would have a Gettier type problem. We would be basing our knowledge on false beliefs that just happen to point us in the correct direction. I think most people would agree that is not knowledge.
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
Travis:
“As for your question about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I don’t recall having given it a lot of thought before. My immediate impression is that it is a myth intended to capture the origins of the human moral sense. The text implies that God did not want us to have this feature because it could be combined with the tree of life to achieve a divine nature.”
Joe:
I don’t think that is in the text. I think the serpent said something like that, but I think it is a stretch to say the author’s message. The text seems to make it clear they could eat from the tree of life – at least before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So if being like God by eating of both trees would be the problem it would seem he might prohibit both trees. God only forbade the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Travis:
“The moral sense is implicated in roughly 100% of social conflict, and since religion was the dominant scaffolding of social structure at the time, this was a particularly important etiology to the authors. It also highlights the inherent relationship between morality and the divine, emphasizing the role of religious authority over social conduct.”
Joe:
That is an interesting take. I think it is odd to say those who are employing moral knowledge should be exalted when that is the knowledge God forbade. But it does suggest that this knowledge does make us like God. I am not sure that we know very much about the social structures of the times these stories were being developed. I think that there is quite a bit of speculation masquerading as knowledge. But it can be interesting to compare them to other ancient creation stories or myths.
Anyway thanks for offering your views.
So when you recognize evil or suffering you find yourself making that recognition by recalling memories of suffering? I don’t, and I suspect most people don’t either. It’s just an intuitive sense, and is more pronounced when there is a tangible perception that triggers an empathetic response. Certainly there’s something to be said for the moral sense being enhanced by being able to relate due to past experience, but I really don’t see that as a primary factor. Think of it like disgust. Experiences can shape and cultivate our disgust response, but those changes are working on an innate core shaped by evolution to prevent us from eating and touching goods that are infested with harmful bacteria. Likewise, an omnipotent God can easily provide us with a generalized intuitive sense to inform our recognition of evil and suffering. I think we already do have something like this, and I really don’t see the logical impossibility.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
They already had eternal life before, but not a moral sense. So they were less than divine. The moral sense took away their eternal life (you will die \ return to dust) but now they had a moral sense. So still less than divine. But they could apparently get eternal life back by eating from the tree of life, and then they would have a fully divine nature. Elohim didn’t want that, so he banished them and stationed guards to prevent it from ever happening.
Not if the authority is claimed to come from God. The story reinforces the fact that moral knowledge is a divine attribute. Anybody who then mediates society’s access to the divine is in the position of being the authoritative conduit (or source, from a secular perspective) for moral knowledge.
I put a response below. So it would have wider margins.
Travis:
“So when you recognize evil or suffering you find yourself making that recognition by recalling memories of suffering? I don’t, and I suspect most people don’t either. It’s just an intuitive sense, and is more pronounced when there is a tangible perception that triggers an empathetic response.”
Joe:
An emotional empathic response involves the same sort of suffering response in the brain as though we ourselves were suffering. In a sense we are literally suffering with the person we see. I think this suffering could also lead to moral knowledge. But it is also suffering so it would not avoid suffering. Maybe I would say we would have to at least have some sort of memory of suffering if we don’t have empathic suffering in order to know those evils that are evil due to the suffering they cause.
I talk about the different types of empathy here:
https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/04/09/love-versus-selfish-emotional-empathy/
“I feel your pain” isn’t just a gooey metaphor; it can be made neurologically literal: Other people’s pain really does activate the same brain area as your own pain, and more generally, there is neural evidence for a correspondence between self and other.”
https://fs.blog/2017/12/against-empathy/
Psychopaths tend to lack this empathy. I think it is no surprise that they also often act in a way that demonstrates they do not really understand morality.
Travis:
“Certainly there’s something to be said for the moral sense being enhanced by being able to relate due to past experience, but I really don’t see that as a primary factor. Think of it like disgust. Experiences can shape and cultivate our disgust response, but those changes are working on an innate core shaped by evolution to prevent us from eating and touching goods that are infested with harmful bacteria. Likewise, an omnipotent God can easily provide us with a generalized intuitive sense to inform our recognition of evil and suffering. I think we already do have something like this, and I really don’t see the logical impossibility.”
Joe:
Is being disgusted a form of suffering? Imagine you lived in a world where everything you saw was extremely disgusting. Wouldn’t that qualify as a form of suffering.
Now you might say well then have some other emotional response (that involves no suffering at all) be the indicator. But then we don’t get the full knowledge of evil. I mean lets say every time we see an evil act that is evil due to the suffering it causes we see a yellow tint. (Of course, it seems logically impossible to know of such evils without suffering since you can’t know of things that are not. And if there is an evil that is evil due to the suffering it causes then there must be suffering) Without understanding what suffering is (either because we forgot or because we never knew) we would just thing the yellow tint makes it evil. And such a belief would be wrong not knowledge.
Joe:
“So if being like God by eating of both trees would be the problem it would seem he might prohibit both trees. God only forbade the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
Travis and Joe:
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Joe:
We both quote this text. I quote it to show that it is only after they chose to taste the fruit of knowledge of good and evil that God refused to allow them to eat of this tree. You seem to try to use it to say God did not want us to be like him and this was the second and only remaining piece we needed to be divine like God. But none of that is anywhere to be found in the text but it is subtlely implied by the snake.
In fact the text says God made us in his image. The texts in the bible often ask us to be as much like God as we can. I don’t know anywhere where the bible suggests we shouldn’t try to be like God or God does not want that per se. He does not want us to know good and evil as he does but no where does it say that is why he does not want us to know good and evil.
Nor does anything in the bible suggest that now that we can know good and evil the only thing we need is immortality and we will be just like God. All of that is not only not there but it is contrary to what is taught in other places. Certainly from a Christian perspective we are asked to be like God and that he wants us to have eternal life – but only if we can do so without the suffering brought on by eating the forbidden fruit.
If the message really was the only thing Adam and eve needed to be the same as God was a knowledge of good and evil and eternal life (again something that is simply not there in the text) And that God did not want us to be like him (again not in the text – other than in the mouth of the snake) then it would make more sense for God to forbid both trees. Why would he forbid only one half of the cocktail that makes us like him – which he is trying to avoid?
Travis:
“They already had eternal life before, but not a moral sense.”
Joe:
Clearly God did not create death for them until after they choose the forbidden fruit. But obviously they did not have eternal life since they died. If someone dies then clearly they did not have eternal life. I think that they must not have eaten from the tree of eternal life before they had the forbidden fruit even though they were clearly permitted to eat from the tree of life up until that time:
“And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:16-17
Travis:
So they were less than divine. The moral sense took away their eternal life (you will die \ return to dust) but now they had a moral sense. So still less than divine. But they could apparently get eternal life back by eating from the tree of life, and then they would have a fully divine nature. Elohim didn’t want that, so he banished them and stationed guards to prevent it from ever happening.
Joe:
But I see nothing in Genesis that suggests the author says or implies that. Where are you seeing anything saying that knowledge of good and evil and eternal life are the only things that are different between our nature and God’s? Its true that God did not want us to have the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and gaining that made us like him. But the text never said he forbade it *because* it would make us like him. The only place you see that is in the words of the snake and even what the snake says is ambiguous and crafty.
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5
So the snake really twists the words. He seems to know that God commanded Adam not to eat from that tree (in the story this was before eve was created) and his question is not a lie but it does introduce a doubt about God. He does not say they won’t die if they eat that fruit but he says they will not “certainly die.” I think it is best to interpret this as a lie but to be sure it would still be up to God to follow through with his promise to have them die so is there still some uncertainty? Well if you don’t trust God there is. Also the way he says “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The snake seems to be trying to suggest that the *only* reason God doesn’t want them to eat is because doing this will mean they share knowledge with God. But he doesn’t exactly say that. The “For” is left ambiguous. I mean it follows him saying you will not certainly die but I don’t think it modifies that. What he says is at least arguably all true (although I think it is best read a as a lie) but it is obviously misleading.
Joe:
I think it is odd to say those who are employing moral knowledge should be exalted when that is the knowledge God forbade.
Travis:
Not if the authority is claimed to come from God. The story reinforces the fact that moral knowledge is a divine attribute. Anybody who then mediates society’s access to the divine is in the position of being the authoritative conduit (or source, from a secular perspective) for moral knowledge.
Joe:
It puts this moral knowledge as something not natural to us like other knowledge. Which I think is also quite deep and insightful. But I am not sure this part of Genesis is saying only certain groups have access to this knowledge or more authority to pronounce it than anyone else. It seems to suggest all humanity gained this knowledge since all humanity continues to wear clothes have shame etc.
I think I’m hearing you say that the proper activation of our moral sense is a form of suffering? And that the translation from this into a propositional moral knowledge is incomplete or inadequate because it lacks the non-propositional component which is required for true moral knowledge? I don’t necessarily agree with all that, but even if we grant it then you still have the issue of why God didn’t setup the world accordingly. The “moral sense” suffering would then be adequate for moral knowledge, but entail far less suffering than the direct experience of harm and evil.
I’m going to tap out on the psychoanalysis of the Genesis authors, but I disagree with your objection. I think the implication is that the concern is with regard to man’s place as a lowly mortal rather than a divine being (similar to Babel). The authors of the NET translation appear to agree with this in their notes on Genesis 2:9 – “The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level.”
Travis:
“I think I’m hearing you say that the proper activation of our moral sense is a form of suffering? And that the translation from this into a propositional moral knowledge is incomplete or inadequate because it lacks the non-propositional component which is required for true moral knowledge?”
Joe:
I wouldn’t word it that way. Rather I would say not all knowledge of good and evil is propositional knowledge. And to know those evils that are evil because of the suffering they cause you would need to know what suffering is. Or you really don’t know what it is that makes that action evil.
Some animals are german shepards. All German Shepards are dogs. That is German Shepard implies dog. To know of a german shepard means you know about dogs.
Some evils are evil because of the suffering they cause. For All of those evils knowing what makes them evil implies knowing suffering. So if you know that evil then you know suffering.
Again if someone has no idea what suffering is and they are told “well it is wrong to light babies on fire” They might also ask “ok is it also wrong to light wood on fire.” I mean does that person really know it is wrong to light babies on fire? Now maybe you could try to define “knowledge” in a way that suggests you could. But setting aside technical niceties of 20th century theories of knowledge most of us would say no that person doesn’t really know what he is talking about and certainly doesn’t have knowledge of evil.
Travis:
“I don’t necessarily agree with all that, but even if we grant it then you still have the issue of why God didn’t setup the world accordingly. The “moral sense” suffering would then be adequate for moral knowledge, but entail far less suffering than the direct experience of harm and evil.”
So are you saying God could do it with “less suffering” but concede that some suffering is required?
I mean if you say we would need no suffering to know good and evil then I would refer to the analogies above and ask do you think we could know about German Shepards without knowing about dogs? Or do you agree that is logically impossible because German Shepard implies it is a dog.
But if agree some suffering is logically required but you think he should have done it with less suffering then ok. Lets start with what you say:
“…far less suffering than direct experience of harm and evil.” All suffering is a direct experience is it not? I mean even if it is a dream or empathy the suffering I experience is direct to me. Its not like someone else’s suffering radiates and I catch some of it. Suffering is a subjective experience but the subject either experiences it or the subject doesn’t. I mean I would rather suffer in a minor way from a bump than have horrendous nightmares every night or witness a horrendous event that causes massive empathetic suffering.
So then we have to ask how much suffering is enough to know evil and good? We know some people are spoiled and seem never to appreciate the good they have. Are there quantums of suffering or joy? Should the duration be only one quantum but still enough to be remembered etc?
I think one thing we can both agree on is that God would want the suffering to be for only a finite time. And that is what God does as a result of our choice. He limits our existence in evil. It is only at that point that he blocks off the tree of eternal life. So Genesis does actually have God act as we think a loving God would act. What is a lifetime compared to eternity?
Keep in mind that before God asked Adam about what happened – that ate of the tree – he was already suffering shame and fear. That was not God’s doing. Now literalists would say that can’t be because God knows everything. But again the language of God asking Adam what he did and how he knows he is naked has a purpose. It shows that harms started happening that were not directly caused by God but rather from our actions themselves.
Travis:
“I’m going to tap out on the psychoanalysis of the Genesis authors, but I disagree with your objection. I think the implication is that the concern is with regard to man’s place as a lowly mortal rather than a divine being (similar to Babel). The authors of the NET translation appear to agree with this in their notes on Genesis 2:9 – “The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level.”
Joe:
I am not interested in psychoanalysis either. Rather I am looking for any actual text that supports that view. And the only text where that view is even presented is by the deceiving snake. I don’t think the author of genesis was trying to tell us the snake had the right view. I don’t think I need to do psychoanalysis to draw that conclusion since the snake is called a deceiver and punished by God for its statements rather it seems fairly straight forward.
Also I have never heard of the net translation and have no idea who they are. I think you will find plenty of people who interpret the guarding of the tree of life as God acting in our interest so that we are not permanently stuck in our state – including church fathers. That is much more in line with the overall text than thinking the author just wanted us to accept the views of the snake.
No, wait. You skipped the part where you established that suffering was required to know evil and good, even if we allow the non-propositional requirement. Person A suffers. They now have the property \ quality of knowing evil and good in accordance with that act of suffering. Why can’t God instantiate that property \ quality without the person having experienced the suffering in the first place? Are you saying that the full extent of the suffering is resident in the possession of that knowledge?
It’s the same text you’re using to defend your view, coupled with a vague sense of similar themes in ancient mythology. You’re welcome to think that your interpretation is better. I’m not particularly interested in splitting those hairs.
Travis:
“No, wait. You skipped the part where you established that suffering was required to know evil and good, even if we allow the non-propositional requirement. Person A suffers. They now have the property \ quality of knowing evil and good in accordance with that act of suffering. Why can’t God instantiate that property \ quality without the person having experienced the suffering in the first place? ”
Well then it wouldn’t be a “requirement” would it? I mean either someone has to suffer to know evils that are evil due to suffering or they don’t. You can’t say they are required and now the person knows so lets have a person in that state of knowledge without what is required to be in that state.
I have given a couple of examples of how knowing suffering would be required for certain types of knowledge of evil. I gave the example of shooting a gun versus a flashlight. I have also given the example of someone saying ok it is wrong to burn a person but is it wrong to burn wood? As examples of why knowledge of suffering is required.
So do you agree it is required or it is not? If you think it doesn’t see above. But if you agree it is required to know certain evils then you should understand you can’t take away that requirement and still know. If you take away any knowledge of suffering and the person then says ok well if it is wrong to burn people does that mean it is wrong to burn wood? Then you are back in a situation where the person doesn’t know the evil.
Travis:
Are you saying that the full extent of the suffering is resident in the possession of that knowledge?
Joe:
No not the same extent but some suffering must be known or experienced. If there is none at all then I don’t see how anyone could understand what suffering is. Its something you only understand by experience.
That said I do think we understand certain evils better by better understanding the suffering they cause. And to the extent our understanding of the suffering is blunted our understanding of the evil is also blunted. I think I gave the example of knowing the extent of evils from history.
Travis:
“It’s the same text you’re using to defend your view, coupled with a vague sense of similar themes in ancient mythology. ”
Joe:
I’m not basing my views on themes from ancient mythology. I’m basing my view on the specific text of this story including the specific types of trees mentioned and what is recounted.
How does it support your reading that Adam experienced shame and fear before God even knew what he did?
How does it support your view that both Adam and Eve were free to eat from the tree of life if God really just wanted us to not be like him?
If that was the point wouldn’t the narrator or God said something to support that view as opposed to the one character who is considered evil due to being a deceiver? I mean you are saying the moral of the story is something the deceitful villain said about the hero. Don’t you see why that seems a bit of a stretch?
Travis
“You’re welcome to think that your interpretation is better. I’m not particularly interested in splitting those hairs.”
I don’t think I’m splitting hairs but rather discussing the basic points of the text. In any event I agree that I was the one who asked you for your views and I appreciate your sharing even if we think the text means very different things.
No. You misunderstood. I was granting the requirement that true moral knowledge involves non-propositional content. I was not granting that the non-propositional content can only be acquired by experience.
Not for an omnipotent God. If experience can put us into a state of having true moral knowledge, why can’t God put us into that same state without the experience? And remember that we’ve already hashed out the false memory angle. Our moral intuitions do not depend on us first recalling memories of our own moral encounters.
Thanks for correcting me, I think I did misunderstand you. Hopefully this response is more on point.
Travis:
No. You misunderstood. I was granting the requirement that true moral knowledge involves non-propositional content. I was not granting that the non-propositional content can only be acquired by experience.
Joe:
Ok I think that is what experiential knowledge is. If I say “I know the suffering of being burned with third degree burns” that statement *means* I have experienced it. The words “experienced” and “know” are interchangeable for that type of knowledge.
Or at least, how could that statement possibly be true if I never experienced *any* suffering at all? I think the only response to someone who said that if they never experienced any suffering would be “no you don’t know.”
Joe:
Some suffering must be experienced. If there is none at all then I don’t see how anyone could understand what suffering is. It’s something you only understand by experience.
I think we should also consider the difference between belief and knowledge and I can clarify my position. Belief is a disposition to act a certain way when certain circumstances arise. I fully agree that God could give us these dispositions to act certain ways in relation to evil without us suffering.
But knowledge is not just belief. Knowledge has to not only be true (which I agree God could give us true beliefs about good and evil without suffering) but based on something substantial. I don’t want to get overly detailed in what that substantial thing is – it is often called sufficient reason or justified true belief.
The reason I don’t want to get too far into the technical views of knowledge and what it means to us now is because I highly doubt the authors of scripture had any of those arguments in mind. It would be anachronistic. But I do think it generally refers to a belief or mental state that is true and based on something substantial.
Ok so I decided to look up what the Hebrew word to know means. And it is pretty interesting:
“The Old Testament. The Hebrew root yada [[;d”y],translated “know”/”knowledge, ” appears almost 950 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has a wider sweep than our English word “know, ” including perceiving, learning, understanding, willing, performing, and experiencing. To know is not to be intellectually informed about some abstract principle, but to apprehend and experience reality. Knowledge is not the possession of information, but rather its exercise or actualization.”
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/know-knowledge.html
The word “know” in Hebrew is sometimes used to mean someone experienced sexual relations with someone.
So when we look at this word as used here it may be that that knowing good and evil could have directly meant “experience good and evil.” If that was what it meant then well that would directly address the question. You can’t experience evil unless you experience evil.
But I think even if we understand the term roughly in our more modern sense I still think it is fair to say it is not just true belief but true belief based on something substantial. And if someone said “Ok I know it wrong to burn a person” (but they did not know what suffering was) yet really could not explain why it was wrong to burn a person but not wood, they would lack that substantial thing that leads to the belief. At least for those evils that are evil because of the suffering they cause.
Travis:
“Not for an omnipotent God. If experience can put us into a state of having true moral knowledge, why can’t God put us into that same state without the experience?”
Joe:
From my perspective, it seems like I am saying for a car to run properly it must have some sort of wheels attached. And you are saying well if wheels are required for the car to run properly why couldn’t God take that car that has the wheels, and then remove the wheels and still have it run properly? Do you see what I mean knowledge (even if we take our more modern view of it) requires some substantial basis. You remove the basis and you no longer have knowledge.
Travis:
And remember that we’ve already hashed out the false memory angle. Our moral intuitions do not depend on us first recalling memories of our own moral encounters.
Joe:
I agree it does not require specifics. But that does not mean they do not depend on our having some knowledge of suffering. And I believe saying “I know suffering” and “I have experienced suffering” are really identical statements. Given what we know of the Hebrew word “know” I think it is fair to say that they may have meant direct experience or at least some amount of experience would be required as well.
OK. Long story short, I think you’re vastly overstating the dependence on experience in forming moral knowledge in our actual world, and vastly underestimating the possible worlds in which an omnipotent God can instantiate true moral knowledge. I doubt that either of us can say anything more to resolve that disconnect, so it’s probably time to wrap it up. Thanks for the discussion.