There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Christ died for|
our articles about
|Devil's in the details|
|The pearly gates|
“”(According to St. Thomas Aquinas) the soul is not transmitted with the semen, but is created afresh with each man. There is, it is true, a difficulty: when a man is born out of wedlock, this seems to make God an accomplice in adultery. This objection, however, is only specious. (There is a grave objection, which troubled Saint Augustine, and that is as to the transmission of original sin. It is the soul that sins, and if the soul is not transmitted, but created afresh, how can it inherit the sin of Adam? This is not discussed.)
|—Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Chapter XIII: Saint Thomas Aquinas|
Original sin is the cynical doctrine that humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve listened to a snake and not God in the Garden of Eden, and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The event of expulsion from paradise that soon followed is called the Fall of Man.
Doctrine differs between different Christian sects, but in general, Fundamentalist and Evangelical sects believe that without baptism to cleanse the soul of original sin, a person cannot go to heaven. This has led to moral debate as to whether a just god would allow an unbaptized infant to be condemned to hell for having the arrogance and temerity to die without being baptized.
According to the Bible, in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God had told Adam and Eve:
— Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
— Genesis 3:4-5
Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Naturally enough, they ate the fruit, that one hopes was the tastiest one in history. Surprisingly, the serpent had actually told the truth — because they did not die "in the day" that they ate. Unless one calls on the day-age ambiguity (but that might militate against Young-Earth creationism…). As predicted, Eve and Adam did obtain knowledge of good and evil. It is unknown how long they resisted temptation, but it must have been less than 130 years, because Adam was 130 years old when his son Seth was begotten - Genesis 5:3.
While on the subject of trees in Genesis, some Christian sects — and arguably some biblical verses — maintain that there was a second tree in the garden: The Tree of Life. And that eating of this tree would have provided immortality. One is left to wonder what would have happened if the original couple had first eaten of the tree of life. Or indeed, why it was not the first thing they ate.
The divine cursing
In a fit of spite at being found out, God became really upset and cursed everything and everyone involved in the whole conspiracy, plus everything and anyone not involved for good measure.
Given that there is no punishment on the way the serpent talks, we can infer that the language everyone used back then (before the Tower of Babel) is mutually intelligible how the serpent talks today. Who knew Adam was a parselmouth?
It should be noted that it is only the Christian interpretation that the snake was actually Satan. "Satan" in Jewish tradition refers to interchangeable servants of God empowered to test the faith of mortals; the idea of a singular figure who is God's enemy comes from the New Testament.
In some senses Adam (who, unlike "the woman", has a name) got off relatively easy. Unlike the woman and the serpent, he received no permanent biological punishment; instead God cursed the ground itself and sentenced Adam to work it for his food instead of being provided for by the garden:
After expelling them from Eden, God made Adam and the woman (who is now finally given a name, Eve) "skins" to wear, implying that at least one animal was killed for its pelt to clothe Adam and Eve. This seems especially unjust, considering this animal was likely not involved at all in the forbidden fruit debacle.
Original sin has been used as a reason to restrict women's rights, especially on the issue of sex—and cruelly, as
an excuse a reason to deny them painkillers during childbirth. It has also (at least partially) been a catalyst for the fundamentalist anti-science movement, as it seems the 'moral' of this story is "knowledge is bad; never question what you're told to do by God (or people and/or books representing him)".
Denying that it seems to carry its own consequences (for the conservative Christian that is): Christianity needs this story to promote its whole guilt trip in the New Testament. After all, if there was no original sin, it's just something that God programmed into man from the very beginning. And if this is the case, what exactly is Jesus dying on the cross for again? On top of this, if the validity of the concept and origin of original sin is questionable, it tends to cast serious doubt on the rest of the Bible, and from here things just go completely downhill. After all, if this story, the very first story in the Bible, is revealed to be absolute bull, it gets one to think "Hmm, I wonder what other stories in the Bible are also a load of crap." Liberal Christians generally have no problem admitting this.
Symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Many ancient or "traditional" cultures have a moment in an adult's life where he or she escapes the innocence of childhood and becomes an adult. Often, this is at the time of a first kill, the onset of menses, or after a grueling quest to understand one's personal identity. In these cultures, the mythology often reflects this move from innocence to adulthood.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the very "fall of mankind" itself can be understood mythologically as the moment when the culture at large went from an animal-like existence, where moral reasoning is impossible because we were acting on instinct alone, to a point where there is real morality — and therefore consequences. We have stopped being animals, and become a thinking civilization with moral autonomy — we are able to reflect upon our own behaviors and decide what is good and bad, right and wrong. We will necessarily "die", not because God cursed us with death, but because we became aware of it. The problem with this of course is that any human civilization capable of making up a story about evil and good would probably already be capable of this moral autonomy, seeing as they are familiar with the concept of morality that is part of the story.
The Garden of Eden can also be seen, metaphorically, as a time when we lived as children, safe in our ignorance of the troubles of life and death. We did what our parents asked, with only the slightest disobedience grounded in limits, not thought or awareness. When one first questions one's parents' rules and asks for the right to make one's own choices and decisions, one becomes an adult, but at the cost of others caring for one… at the cost of one's innocence… at the cost of Eden.
The sad thing is, the Bible (or at least the Garden of Eden episode) could become a best-selling fantasy story about how children lose their innocence and begin maturing as adults. If only so many people didn't take it so literally.
One could also see the Genesis Fall as an authoritarian rewrite of the more humanistic Greek story of the Titan Prometheus, who defied the will of Zeus to bring the secret of fire (i.e. the gift of knowledge) to humans, and was punished cruelly for doing so: in each account powerful deities react to challenges to their monopoly on power and inflict ongoing penalties for breaching strictures on censored forbidden knowledge. Moral: do as you're told, or else…
Absurdities & Contradictions
Note that this list applies to common Christian beliefs. Many of these ideas were alien to the Jewish writers of Genesis.
- Humans are punished for sins committed before they were even born, even if God already knew them (Jeremiah 1:5), meaning -in some branches of Christianism at least as Protestantism- they're condemned by default to Hell despite all the good works they will do in life.
- It was the sin that made Adam and Eve aware of good and evil, so they couldn't know that what they were doing was a good or evil act until they had done it. (Why didn't God want them to know anyway? And didn't he already know they were going to disobey his instructions? What kind of sin is this? see also: Judas' betrayal)
- There's an extremely dangerous and unprotected tree in "paradise", that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving deity doesn't want touched, but this omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving deity also created the beings that would touch the aforementioned tree.
- The real reason for banishing them from the Garden wasn't even so much that they sinned or that they had knowledge of good and evil. It was actually out of the fear that they might find and eat the fruit of another dangerous tree: the Tree of Life and become immortal like God. So what's the real message? God does not like to share power, and is quite possibly afraid of man's potential. This seems to be a recurring theme in many Old Testament stories (see also: Tower of Babel).
- Actually, Genesis 3:20 suggests that the mortality of mankind was a result of original sin, so eating from the Tree of Life should have made no difference to an already immortal being.
- Since human existence in the Garden of Eden before original sin was therefore infinite, even a very small chance of Adam or Eve eating from the forbidden tree by accident would have become increasingly more likely over time. Original sin was essentially a foregone conclusion after God created the tree.
- Said trees do not seem to have any reason for existing in the first place. Other than being a bad plot device, they do not seem to serve any purpose to either God, the garden at large, or the animals in it.
- The really cool way that Eve reacted to the talking snake. Your average person would have some problems with a talking snake but Eve — not only is unfazed but is actually convinced by it.
- After committing the original sin, Adam and Eve hid from the sight of the Lord. Neither this nor the presence of the snake/Satan in the Garden was noticed by him. Apparently God isn't omnipresent and he can’t see everything
- Genesis 3:8
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
- Genesis 3:8
- Original sin is directly contradicted by the Bible in the Book of Ezekiel:
- Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
- Ezekiel 18:20
- An omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving deity cursed Eve by making her bear children with the taint of original sin. The same omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving deity could have made Eve childless and created new human beings without the curse of original sin. Humanity's curse of original sin was unnecessary.
- Why would Eve commit this sin or any other if she was created with a perfect sinless nature? Because she sinned it must have been part of her nature, which God created, so it is at least partly his fault. The free will defense doesn't work because God is a free agent that never sins because it is against his nature, so free will alone is not a sufficient condition for sinning. Eve wouldn't have sinned unless she was created with a sinful nature, and she wouldn't acquire a sinful nature because she wouldn't have sinned in the first place. No matter how you square it, God is partly to blame here for the original sin. This should logically also apply to Satan, who must not have rebelled against God solely because he had the "free will" to do so but must have done so because of his sinful nature. Alternatively, God can be blamed for having a pair of creations with the naivety of a child as can be deduced from the above points
unless the snake got a lucky roll on its Diplomacy check.
- This doctrine, combined with the Crucifixion, means that the central tenet of Christianity amounts to: God demanded a human sacrifice to allow himself to forgive us for something we didn't do.
- To be fair, the standard against serpents has been upheld to the same level to whatever standard being held against humanity, whether that's the right thing to do or not.
- Catholicism — immortality and the tree of life
- Tennant, F. R. (2012). "2: The ethnological origin and relations of the fall-story". The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780521236331. Retrieved 2017-05-06. "Allowing for the difference between the Hebrew conception of God's nature and disposition towards man and that of Greek thought […], there is a great similarity between the teaching of the legend of Prometheus and that of the acquisition of knowledge through the eating of the forbidden fruit. Both contain the idea that the ills of human life are a punishment for man's overstepping the limits of the sphere assigned to him: both regard human knowledge and culture as something to be wrenched from a deity jealous of human encroachments. and whose acquisition was mediated by a superhuman being: both imply that human inventiveness or desire for material advancement can scarcely be distinguished from arrogant independence or defiance, and see in [hubris] the primal sin [...]."
- Or non-existence if you're an annihilationist and interpret John 3:16 and other verses as Romans 6:23 that way.
- Skeptics' Annotated Bible, Genesis 3:8. Unless this was a scheme prepared by him to expel both of the Garden, with the punishment of the snake coming as a bonus.