The Fortunate Fall/Paradise Lost

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am currently re-reading Milton's Paradise Lost along with Dante's Divine Comedy for the first time. I had been considering posting this in the Milton sub-forum but decided it'd probably have a better chance of being seen here.

My copy of PL is the 2003 Penguin Classics edition which has an introduction by John Leonard. The part I want to discuss can be found in the intro on pages xxvi & xxvii in this edition. For those of you without this edition I'll post the relevant parts here:

Firstly the free-will argument:

How can Adam & Eve be free when God foresees their every act and speaks of their Fall as a certainty before it has even happened (iii 93-7)? Milton addresses this in De Doctrina Christiana. He there draws a distinction between certainty & necessity. Because God has foreseen the Fall from all eternity, and because his knowledge is infallible, the Fall was always a certainty. But it was not necessitated by any divine decree. It was a free act in the moment of its occurence. God foresaw the Fall, and permitted it, but he did not make it happen. He therefore has every right to hold Adam & Eve responsible for their disobedience.
/SNIP/
So long as Adam & Eve are free to resist Satan's temptation, his act of tempting them does not necessitate their fall. One might even argue that God aids and abets Satan's arrival into paradise for the benign reason that he respects Adam & Eve's freedom, and does not want to censor their experiences

Now the Fortunate Fall:

In an influential article published in 1937, Arthur Lovejoy invoked the medieval notion of a felix culpa or Fortunate Fall to argue that Adam & Eve's sin is paradoxically a cause for celebration. Lovejoy sees Milton's God as working for the Fall all along. God wants humankind to fall so that he can show us his goodness by restoring us. Our final state will be happier than that from which we fell. God contrives the Fall, then, but his motives are benign. Empson siezes on this argument - If God contrives the Fall he must be what Milton says he is not: the author of sin. The doctrine of the Fortunate Fall would place God in the awkward position of secretly wanting Adam & Eve to do what he tells them not to do, and condemns them for doing. Worse, the doctrine would make all God's warnings hypocritical.

Answering Empson:

Danielson questions Empson's assumption that the Fall is forunate.
/SNIP/
God brings good out of evil, but that is not enough to make the Fall fortunate. The fall can be fortunate only if the good that comes out of it could not have come about in any other way. The key question is whether God needs evil. Does God require Adam & Eve to eat the apple as a necessary pre-condition for the ultimate and supreme happiness of those few human beings who will enjoy it?

So what am I interested in finding out:

Well firstly I am not particularly interested in another "free-will" discussion, they tend to go round in circles.

I would like opinions on the following:

Do you agree with Empson that the idea of a Fortunate Fall implicates God?

Could the goodness of God come from any way other than the original Fall?

Does God need evil?

[Virgil]

Hi Kilt. I'm not all that up on the religius philosophy behind PL, but if you want to talk about the poetry, I would love to. I read it from end to end about two years ago and found it a marvelous work of poetry. If there's any poetry you would like to highlight I'll be glad to comment on it in this thread.

[hyperborean]

That's some good material you're reading, kilted exile. {edit}I believe we argued about free will before and it went in circles...hopefully this thread will clear things up.

[kilted exile]

Hi Kilt. I'm not all that up on the religius philosophy behind PL, but if you want to talk about the poetry, I would love to. I read it from end to end about two years ago and found it a marvelous work of poetry. If there's any poetry you would like to highlight I'll be glad to comment on it in this thread.

Hmmm,yes I will do there are some wonderful parts and depending on whether or not this thread degenerates into the usual name calling in this section of the forum or not I will either post them here or open a new thread in the Milton section to discuss them.

That's some good material you're reading, kilted exile.

Ahem, I always read good material, if it wasnt I wouldnt read it. Just depends on what our opinions of good is e.g. Dickens good; Austen bad

[Lote-Tree]

Well firstly I am not particularly interested in another "free-will" discussion, they tend to go round in circles.

Resolve that in your head. Then rest is just details.

[kilted exile]

Resolve that in your head. Then rest is just details.

I resolved my opinion on it about 11/12 years ago, and I stand by my original premise the discussion goes nowhere because people repeat the same mantras constantly.

What I am interested in are opinions on the questions I asked at the end of my first post - Is anyone else interested in this?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Well firstly I am not particularly interested in another "free-will" discussion, they tend to go round in circles.

I would like opinions on the following:

Do you agree with Empson that the idea of a Fortunate Fall implicates God?

Could the goodness of God come from any way other than the original Fall?

Does God need evil?

1) No, the argument rests on whether the restoring a fallen Earth was the optimal way to show humankind his goodness. But in showing his goodness, he logically contradicts himself in order to orchestrate the showing of his goodness. The argument on which Empson based his criticism is internally flawed and therefore Emspon's response doesn't necessarily implicate God.

2) Knowing that the original fall was the best option (because God picked it), the original fall is the only result there could be. If the original fall was the only result possible, then it is the only manner in which God could show his goodness. Therefore, the goodness of God could not come through any way besides the original fall.

3)Looks like it.

[Orionsbelt]

There are a number of sides to this gem. Let me point out ... In the same way that Adam and Eve had a choice. So God had a choice as well. As the story goes He chose to close the gate of paradise and punish mankind. He could just as easily decided to give them a chance to redeem the transgression... say a quest or a hard task.... forgive it entirely, or ignore it altogether... mmm at least for a time. just thought I'd throw that out there for now. In the back of my mind Divine Comedy....

[Lote-Tree]

I resolved my opinion on it about 11/12 years ago, and I stand by my original premise the discussion goes nowhere because people repeat the same mantras constantly.

If you have resolved it then why pursue it?

[kilted exile]

1) No, the argument rests on whether the restoring a fallen Earth was the optimal way to show humankind his goodness. But in showing his goodness, he logically contradicts himself in order to orchestrate the showing of his goodness. The argument on which Empson based his criticism is internally flawed and therefore Emspon's response doesn't necessarily implicate God.

Then how can people be sure that by following other commands from the bible that they were/are acting in the correct way. If God required Adam & Eve to break the only order given to them in the garden in oreder that he can show his goodness,perhaps obeying his other rules prevents God from showing his goodness also?

2) Knowing that the original fall was the best option (because God picked it), the original fall is the only result there could be. If the original fall was the only result possible, then it is the only manner in which God could show his goodness. Therefore, the goodness of God could not come through any way besides the original fall.

Is this not kind of limiting to the ability of God?

3)Looks like it.

Could you expand on this? Does he need evil just so that his goodness is more clearly seen? Or does he need people to be evil so they go to hell in order to serve as a comparison so that those who go to heaven will be able to see the effects of choices?

There are a number of sides to this gem. Let me point out ... In the same way that Adam and Eve had a choice. So God had a choice as well. As the story goes He chose to close the gate of paradise and punish mankind. He could just as easily decided to give them a chance to redeem the transgression... say a quest or a hard task.... forgive it entirely, or ignore it altogether... mmm at least for a time. just thought I'd throw that out there for now. In the back of my mind Divine Comedy....

I think some christians would probably argue that the living on earth is the quest or hard task you describe, however it is an interesting scenario

If you have resolved it then why pursue it?

I am not pursuing it. This will be the third time this within this thread, I am not interested in discussing it. You are the one who keeps bringing it up

[Bookworm4Him]

There are a number of sides to this gem. Let me point out ... In the same way that Adam and Eve had a choice. So God had a choice as well. As the story goes He chose to close the gate of paradise and punish mankind. He could just as easily decided to give them a chance to redeem the transgression... say a quest or a hard task.... forgive it entirely, or ignore it altogether... mmm at least for a time. just thought I'd throw that out there for now. In the back of my mind Divine Comedy....

We had fallen into sin, and there had to be a sacrifice to buy us back out. Yes, God could have avoided that whole situation in the first place, but then we wouldn't have had free will. Let me illustrate with a story I heard once.
Once upon a time...(I'm not a good story teller, so I'll put it plain and simple) there was a set of train tracks. And there was a boy. The boy was playing on the train tracks, unaware that a train was coming. He didn't see the train, and the condutor didn't see him. A worker at the train tracks saw this scenario in time, and rushed to the boy, pushed him out of the way, but was killed himself.

Now, we would consider this heroic, but what if there was another way? What if the worker could have just flipped the track switch and avoided the collision altogether? Then we would consider him an idiot. Jesus (the worker) was obviously not an idiot, therefore we must assume there was no other way.

The point is that we couldn't redeem our transgression. We were like slaves to a creul master aka sin. We couldn't get ourselves out of slavery. God had to buy us back, and the only way was through a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, His Son, who had never sinned Himself, and thus wasn't a slave. He had to pay our way, since we couldn't.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Then how can people be sure that by following other commands from the bible that they were/are acting in the correct way. If God required Adam & Eve to break the only order given to them in the garden in oreder that he can show his goodness,perhaps obeying his other rules prevents God from showing his goodness also?

Well, the argument you first posted begs the question on whether the original fall was best for showing his goodness. Roughly put: Given the conditions where God showed his goodness during the original fall, that was the best way to show his goodness, and therefore the only way it could have happened. But our knowledge that the original fall was best is grounded on God's infallibility, and therefore begs the question of whether God is truly infallible or not in the first place for having orchestrated our fall. The question of whether God needed the original fall displays the circular reasoning moreso than it succeeds in making a justified claim.

As for the second question, whether obeying the other rules prevents God from showing his goodness can't really be answered because the entire scenario begs the question.

Is this not kind of limiting to the ability of God?

Not if God logically could not have displayed his goodness in any other way. That is, the only way a square can be a square is for it to have four sides, but that doesn't limit God's ability because of the manner in which we've defined our terms: the square can only exist with four sides. Similarly if man's fall was the only way God could show his goodness, then that does not limit him.

Could you expand on this? Does he need evil just so that his goodness is more clearly seen? Or does he need people to be evil so they go to hell in order to serve as a comparison so that those who go to heaven will be able to see the effects of choices?

Given the scenario you presented earlier actually happened, and that this is the only way God could show his goodness, then God does need evil in order to show his goodness.

To be honest, the argument is filled with a lot of inconsistencies. It is sophistical and ends paradoxically, and not much can be learned from it because it is so overcomplicated.

[kilted exile]

We had fallen into sin, and there had to be a sacrifice to buy us back out. Yes, God could have avoided that whole situation in the first place, but then we wouldn't have had free will. Let me illustrate with a story I heard once.
Once upon a time...(I'm not a good story teller, so I'll put it plain and simple) there was a set of train tracks. And there was a boy. The boy was playing on the train tracks, unaware that a train was coming. He didn't see the train, and the condutor didn't see him. A worker at the train tracks saw this scenario in time, and rushed to the boy, pushed him out of the way, but was killed himself.

Now, we would consider this heroic, but what if there was another way? What if the worker could have just flipped the track switch and avoided the collision altogether? Then we would consider him an idiot. Jesus (the worker) was obviously not an idiot, therefore we must assume there was no other way.

The point is that we couldn't redeem our transgression. We were like slaves to a creul master aka sin. We couldn't get ourselves out of slavery. God had to buy us back, and the only way was through a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, His Son, who had never sinned Himself, and thus wasn't a slave. He had to pay our way, since we couldn't.

Well yes but I am more interested in the original fall, which if it had not taken place the salvation would have been unnecessary. I suppose working with your analogy this would be proper barricades to prevent the kid getting on the tracks in the first place.

Well, the argument you first posted begs the question on whether the original fall was best for showing his goodness. Roughly put: Given the conditions where God showed his goodness during the original fall, that was the best way to show his goodness, and therefore the only way it could have happened. But our knowledge that the original fall was best is grounded on God's infallibility, and therefore begs the question of whether God is truly infallible or not in the first place for having orchestrated our fall. The question of whether God needed the original fall displays the circular reasoning moreso than it succeeds in making a justified claim.

As for the second question, whether obeying the other rules prevents God from showing his goodness can't really be answered because the entire scenario begs the question.

I dont really see it as being all that circular, it seems step by step to me.

1) God requires the fall of humans to show his goodness

2) God says dont eat the fruit off of that tree (but really requires Adam & Eve to disobey)

3) Adam & Eve eat the fruit

4) God banishes them from the Garden

5) God displays his goodness by allowing the "pure" entry to heaven

6) Humans have the chance to enter heaven, a better reward than that of immortality in the Garden - hence a "fortunate fall"

So my follow up Q is relevant in as much as it queries which other of Gods rules he might prefer it for us to break.

Not if God logically could not have displayed his goodness in any other way. That is, the only way a square can be a square is for it to have four sides, but that doesn't limit God's ability because of the manner in which we've defined our terms: the square can only exist with four sides. Similarly if man's fall was the only way God could show his goodness, then that does not limit him.

But surely there are other ways he could have shown his goodness? How about by forgivness?

Given the scenario you presented earlier actually happened, and that this is the only way God could show his goodness, then God does need evil in order to show his goodness.

So if there was no evil/sin in the world God would not be able to show his goodness?

To be honest, the argument is filled with a lot of inconsistencies. It is sophistical and ends paradoxically, and not much can be learned from it because it is so overcomplicated.

Ah, but if it was a simple answer it would be nowhere near as interesting

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

The argument hinges on whether God requires humans to fall in order to show his goodness, which I stated and you quoted in the above post. The question of whether the fall was necessary is begged, not whether the outcome of the fall would adequately show God's goodness.

I would think there are other ways to show his goodness, but I think that sort of thing would heavily depend on what one considers good and bad.

Based on the above story, and taking for convention that God required humanity to fall, then yes, God could not show his goodness if there were no evil.

I happen to like simple and truthful answers over complex and sophistical ones. It is interesting but only when treated as a thought experiment or riddle. Good thread

[Lote-Tree]

I am not pursuing it. This will be the third time this within this thread, I am not interested in discussing it. You are the one who keeps bringing it up

Fine. No problema :-) I thought if you resolved it would have answered your question.