Thank You, Eve

It was an apple.

Or was it a date?

Or a fig?

Whatever.

Whatever it was, when Eve gave it to Adam the human race grew up; free will came into being. Adam didn't sin – it was only Eve.ⁱ In fact, there's no evidence that Adam sinned even later on, except, perhaps, by not admitting – by trying to hide the fact – that in his ignorance he had violated Hashem's wishes. Let me explain.

It cannot be denied that Eve chose to eat whatever it was after G-d had placed it off limits. But that choice was not an example of free will. Eve simply did what she was told to do by the last person (in this case a snake) who spoke to her. It was a very child-like kind of obedience, trusting whatever she was told, and doing what she was told. She wasn't really sinning. For, at that point, the last thing she had been told was that she should not fear eating the fruit. So she ate. Clearly she should not have offered the fruit to Adam. But she did. And like a child, he did the last thing asked of him, and he ate it.

When Eve ate the appleⁱⁱ she had no knowledge of right and wrong, so it is hard to fault her for her decision. But by the time she gave the fruit to Adam she had already eaten and she knew. Giving it to him was an act of free will, demonstrating a desire to involve him in the wrong she now knew she had performed.

There has always been a problem among mortals of reconciling man's “free will” and G-d's omniscience. They cannot both be correct according to the logical principles we understand. In a previous messageⁱⁱⁱ I have addressed the issues of foreknowledge and Hashem's control of whatever happens in the world, and I pointed out that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply a choice to control. I was troubled by my own result, however, recognizing that both His control of the assignment of our DNA, and the environment into which we are born, ensure the result that is manifested in our behavior. Thus our “free will” is informed by a combination of Nature and Nurture, both of which He has determined.

So in order to move on, I have to accept the obvious – the recognition that there are some things I don't know and that, in fact, will never be known. (From a religious perspective, I don't understand G-d's ways, while from a scientific perspective it's hard to make sense of the idea of conservation of mass and energy when there is no logical explanation for the origin of either.^iv) There are some questions we can't answer, and shouldn't try. Better to accept our ignorance and move on – proceeding with the issue on the table. We may be begging the real question, but we have no choice.

So is there free will? It certainly feels as if there is. At every turn I face situations in which I must make choices. For many of them the choice is between “right” and “wrong” as I was taught them. But in many of those cases it may be advantageous to be “wrong.” I sometimes believe that I benefit from doing what I know is not approved. What should I do? It's up to me. That's what choice^v is about, and that's what is controlled by free will. When a governmental project conflicts with my wishes and I am required to pay taxes to support it, I have lost free will. When the government decides to use my tax money to feed the poor it is giving charity in my name. Without debating the need of the hungry or the moral imperative to give help – a virtue that should be a part of everyone's life – it has robbed me of my free will and of my personal opportunity to be charitable. The government has taken from me the chance to make my own decisions. It has done it for me. I no longer have the opportunity to freely obey G-d's will or to disregard it. Morality is mandated. When Congress chooses to make war, those who disagree have no say in the matter. They have no choice but to pay for it or go to prison.

And thus we have lost free will; we no longer have the option of choosing to do what we consider right. If that's the basis of the religious concepts of reward and punishment, they no longer make sense. Without free will there can be no justifiable consequences related to making “right” or “wrong” decisions. Even if we don't see those consequences, the belief that they occur implies the presence of free will in us. Lacking such belief we place ourselves back in the world of the Law of the Jungle. And of the government. Even if Adam and Eve never existed, the government will not let us sin.^vi In fact it will do that even if there is no such thing as sin.

Because she transmitted to me the free choice that G-d had given humanity, I am grateful to Eve. I'll make mistakes. We all do. But knowing that I may do wrong, I can choose to do right rather than be forced to do so – or at least what some politicians or bureaucrats decide should be done. It's my option.

But because our government, by mandating its particular brand of morality, has largely taken away that option from me and from^vii our citizens, I grieve for our future.

Next episode: “Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood” – Philosophy 101.

i      What he did, though, was to vocalize, for the first time, the most famous phrase in the English language: “Yes, dear.”

ii      Or whatever fruit it was. I'll choose apple because that's the usual term used.

iii     See “The Need To Know,” March 20, 2011.

iv     The whole idea of a debate between theists and atheists makes no sense at all. Both groups have well developed belief systems. They may argue vehemently about the validity of their systems – and there may be arguments between what are usually considered religions as well – but no one has the answers and no one is likely to get them.

v     The United States Supreme Court established “choice” – in a case centered on abortion – as a basic part of “privacy” which it viewed as one of our rights even if not listed in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. By doing so the Court, in essence, decided that we all have free will and the constitutional right to use it. Sometimes.

vi      Or perhaps they'll do it for us.

vii    Actually what's mandated if the kind of “choice” that will earn votes for those politicians who seem to support it. And for many of them morality is not their strong suit.