Objective vs Subjective Moral Imperatives, and the Garden of Eden account

Excerpt from “The Retroactive Universe”

Introduction: Most people feel that it is wrong to hurt someone else needlessly. To many, it seems only logical that what one does not want someone else to do to to oneself, one should not do to them.

However, there is certainly no way that science can derive the golden rule via scientific analysis of the physical universe. Furthermore, although it is a logical rule for people who want to live in a peaceful society, the golden rule is not in itself derivable via cold logic alone. For example, although one may be able to prove that the logical way to run a society is to follow the golden rule, and from psychology one can possibly learn that most people would find greatest happiness in a peaceful society, one cannot prove using logic alone that one should live in a society, that one ought not to kill, that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain.

The attempt to derive moral obligation from nature itself - that is, from facts - or from logic is essentially the attempted derivation of a moral statement containing the word 'ought' from a statement of fact. This impossibility is termed in philosophy 'the naturalistic fallacy', and many writers who have not thought through the problem thoroughly have fallen prey to this fallacy.

The basis for morality cannot be fact and logic alone, there must be something else, someplace where the 'ought' comes in from. For some, morality is objective and the 'ought' derives from the realm of the spirit, from the divine. To others morality is objectively real even though its conception among various peoples is subjective. Many philosophical discussions revolve around the difference between an objective and a subjective morality.

Although some objectivists claim that without the existence of God, or perhaps without a belief in the existence of God, there can be no philosophical or logical basis for morality, subjectivists sharply contest this claim.

Some have claimed that because science cannot prove the existence of an objective morality, there is none. Others have claimed that the only objective morality is that evidenced by nature, the 'survival of the fittest'.

The Sources of Moral Obligation

The moral obligation to follow a certain code of behaviour does not derive from law itself. Clearly, the very existence of a law is not in itself sufficient to cause compliance with it, nor is simple awareness of the law sufficient. Compliance follows from a desire to obey the law, whether because of fear of possible punishment, or from a sense of duty, or due to any other motivation.

The same holds true for divine law. Even were a person to recognize the existence of God, acknowledge that God is the creator of all, and believe that God has commanded certain laws, this would not in itself suffice to guarantee that the person will feel that they must obey these laws. Rather, the person must somehow feel that laws made by God are binding on them, or that punishment follows lack of compliance, and only then will they obey.

For some people, the belief that God has commanded them will in itself suffice to induce in them the feeling that this command obligates them. However, this is not necessarily the case with all people. Neither the laws of mathematical logic nor of neurophysiology require that the belief in God and in God's commands necessarily causes the existence of a feeling of moral obligation to follow the commands.

That is to say, there can exist in a brain a belief in God and a belief that God commanded a certain action without there necessarily existing in that brain a feeling of obligation to carry out the wish of this commanding God. There is no impossibility involved in this - no mathematical, physical, logical, biological, physiological or even psychological paradox is involved

In the final analysis, there cannot be any external source of obligation. When a person states that they are obligated to act because God commanded it, in actuality the motivating force is the inner sense of obligation rather the command of God itself.

The belief in a command of God may be the catalyst for the sense of obligation, however there may be other catalysts as well. Indeed, many people feel a sense of obligation to moral activity even though they do not believe in the existence of a God or creator, or in divinely revealed moral laws.

The moral atheist and the moral religionist both have moral codes which they feel to be binding. The sense of obligation may be equally strong in both, but each will have different psychological factors determining their sense of obligation, and each will offer different logical or metaphysical reasons to jutify their moral code.

The moral atheist may state that Hillel's 'golden rule' - that which you do not wish done to you, do not do unto others" - guides their conduct, and some even claim that this rule and Kant's categorical imperative provide an objective source for morality.

Experience teaches that in basic things - not wanting pain, death, starvation etc, wanting pleasure, basic material possesions, food, shelter etc - people are alike. As a result, it is reasonable regarding basic things to make the assumption that what is very undesireable to you is also very undesireable to others and vice versa. This realization in itself is of course not sufficient to cause everyone to follow the golden rule - there are some who decide that they want what the other has, and they are aware that the other does not wish to part with it, but this is not a reason for them to desist from taking it by force. The golden rule is simply a guideline for those who have already made the decision that they wish to to that which is good, that which is considered desirable to others. If someone wishes to act in this way for whatever motivation - fear of punishment, social acceptance, or an inner moral obligation - then the golden rule and its converse serve as useful criteria for determining what actions to do or not to do to another. The basis for this person's morality is not an objective criterion, but rather personal benefit or an inner feeling of moral obligation.

The religionist will feel perhaps that the moral code of the atheist is subjective - even though it may be identical to his own moral code - since it derives from an inner feeling of moral obligation rather than from the absolute objective morality of the creator, a creator who is outside the physical universe and beyond subjective physicality. The atheist may feel that since there is no God there is no such thing as an objective absolute morality such as that believed in by the religionist, and further, that anything which is beyond the physical universe is by definition beyond our perception or knowledge, so that indeed the terms "absolute" and "objective" have no meaning.

In the end however, both the religionist and the moral atheist really derive their morality from the same source - the sense of obligation within them - even though they may attribute this feeling to different causes, attach different physical or metaphysical significance to it, or provide varying justifications for the validity of their moral code. Thus at the most basic level there is no essential philosophical difference between a 'subjective relative morality' and an 'absolute objective morality'.

Science and Morality

INSERT

The Moral Intuition

It is possibly a universal human attribute to feel deeply that certain things are bad and others are good. The classification of actions into these two categories would be different for different individual and societies, but even the worst mass murderers and vicious dictators would probably have a list of goods and evils - maybe claiming that their actions which we term great evils were ctually great goods.

The fact remains that humans possess perhaps invariably a moral intuition with a sense of obligation that is not derived from science or logic alone.

In fact, the moral sense is so deep that it can be compared to the other basic intuitions - that we exist, that we are free agents, that the universe exists around us, that there is meaning and purpose to existence.

In the same way that as Godel showed humans can intuit truths of mathematics via their thoughts in a way that machines can never do, the human mind can reach to a realm where the moral truths lie, and derive an intuition of roght and wrong, and a deep sense of moral obligation.

The Eden Account

An essential point regarding this argument is perhaps implied in the Eden account. .......

INSERT

Adam's Moral Responsibility

To be held responsible for one's actions, one must understand the distinction between good and evil and have a free will to choose between the two. In order for it to be considered laudable to choose the good or refrain from evil, this choosing the good must be non-automatic, for example there must be a natural inclination to do that which is not necessarily good. In addition, in order that it be possible to reject this natural inclination, there must be some inner inclination to do the good

Being held morally responsible for an action means that it is assumed that the decision was made despite the knowledge that the decision was immoral, or evil. In this respect, the Eden account is paradoxical. If Adam is held responsible for his violation, this can only be because it is presumed that he knew that he was choosing the evil over the good, and that he ought not do so. This is however impossible, since the very action he chose to do was that which made him capable of understanding the difference between good and evil in the first place.

The Eden Account

Our question then revolves about the origin of Adam's sense of moral obligation to do good and avoid evil.

As we stated, although one can physically force another to perform a certain activity, or induce their compliance to commands by threatening punishment, simply commanding a sense of obligation will not in itself suffice to produce the desired sense of obligation. Even that which is felt to be God's commands do not automatically induce a sense of obligation in a person, and there is no Biblical command 'thou must feel obligated'. Rather, humans have a built-in sense of obligation, and some commands do or do not evoke that sense of obligation; in any case, even when referring to commands of God, the sense of obligation cannot be commanded, it must derive from within.

It is interesting that the Eden account does not relate that God said "I command you not to eat" but rather states: "And God commanded Adam saying 'eat from all the trees in the garden. But from the tree of knowledge don't eat because if you do you will die (or 'be rendered mortal')'". This wording can be understood to imply that God's words to Adam contained both a command and a warning, or piece of advice, rather than an explicit prohibition against eating from the tree of knowldge. The command was to eat from all the trees, (a positive commandment to enjoy God's garden), while the warning or perhaps advice was not to eat from the tree of knowledge, since doing so would be fatal to Adam.

However, after Adam has eaten, God says to him: "Who has told you that you are naked, is it that from the tree which I commanded you not to eat, you have eaten?". Here we can see that there is mention of an unequivocal command not to eat from the tree of knowledge.

We can interpret this as follows. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam had no sense of moral obligation, or no understanding of good and evil. He could be 'commanded' to eat from all the trees, to enjoy the garden, since this was obviously to his advantage, and the desire to do that which is advantageous or pleasureable is natural. However, Adam could not be commanded not to eat since he had no inner compulsion to refrain from doing evil, or no comprehension of what evil was. Therefore, the statement regarding refraining from eating was necessarily phrased as a warning or advice. Adam could not be forbidden to eat, he could only be advised of the consequences of eating.

Then Adam was able to exercize his free will to decide to choose to accept the burden of moral obligation along with the concommitant mortality, or to remain in the pristine garden, at a high spiritual level, but without the potential to rise further.

As we stated above, even a direct commandment from God is not in itself binding, so that all such commandments are essentially only suggestions or advice. It is only binding on us when we internalize the divine communication, and our sense of obligation is actuated in response, to act in accordance with the 'commandment'.

This may also be the symbolism behind the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man has become a creature knowing good and evil^[1], so that the eating of the tree symbolizes the initial internalization of a sense of obligation, a moral sensitivity. From the Biblical perspective, this internal sense of moral obligation may be something which is not part of the natural physical world, acquired through a process of random mutation, but rather bestowed from above, or more precisely, appropriated by mankind from the realm above.

Alternatively, the sense of moral obligation may have been implanted in man (creating man "in the image of God") but without providing a focus for this sense. Eating of the tree then induced a sense of distinction between good and evil, and this gave a focus to the internal sense of obligation.

Adam chose freely to eat, but this was not a good or evil choice because good and evil were not within his psyche, he only had an unfocused sense of moral obligation - afterwards this sense of obligation was activated by moral dilemmas, and choices became characterizable by good and evil.

Human Moral Responsibility and Eden

It can be a natural form of defense for a person to claim that since they did not ask to be born, did not ask to be part of the moral drama of the universe, they do not bear responsibility for their actions. Rather, they can claim that if there is a creator of all, then this creator bears responsibility for creating all living beings, and therefore for all their actions.

This issue is perhaps referred to in the Eden account. Humanity is placed in a universe without moral imperatives, 'the garden of Eden', and chooses to acquire a moral sense. With this choice humanity accepts responsibility for its actions, effectively placing it now in a new existential reality, that of a world 'outside the garden of Eden'.

In the Eden account, the being who choses to acquire' a moral sense, thereby accepting moral responsibility for his actions, is named "Adam". However, rather than simply being a proper name, Adam' is the Hebrew term for 'Mankind'. Thus, the Eden account relates not merely to an individual named Adam, but rather to the entire human race. From the Biblical perspective, in some metaphysical sense all mankind chose to accept moral responsibility^[2]. From this perspective, no human can claim that they were not consulted as to whether or not they wanted a moral sense and its concomitant moral responsibility, that the burden of moral action is unfair, that they are exempt.

The creation and Eden accounts are thereby linked: the creation account tells of the creation by God of the universe, that God brought man into existence, that God transcends the physical universe and its laws, and that man's essence derives from God and is therefore also transcendent. The Eden account tells of the acceptance - prior to the conclusion of creation - by the collective human essence of moral responsibility, and therefore of the underlying responsibility of man for his situation, of his placement in a universe of moral dilemmas. From this perspective the ultimate responsibility for man's actions is borne not by the power that created the universe and mankind, but rather by humanity itself.

The Problem of Good and the Problem of Evil

The Problem of Good

The idea of God as beneficient and omnipotent creator of all brings along with it the age-old question: why does the world contain so much evil if God is all-good and there is no limit to his power.

The evil that man perpetrates against man may of course be man's own responsibility, however if God is all-powerful, God could prevent these actions from taking place, or alleviate the suffering they cause. In any case, one might expect that the evils of nature not attributable to human action - sickness, death, famine, floods and so on - would be prevented by an all-good all-powerful being.

The Definition of a Merciful God

Clearly most people do not feel that everything that happens is good, and probably no one would ever claim that everything that occurs in the world will appear to be good to everyone in the world. It follows therefore that the belief held by many that God is 'all-good' does not mean to them a belief that everything that occurs in the world will appear to be good to everyone in the world.

Rather, the religious belief that God is all good employs the word 'good' in a manner that requires a quite different definition. Some might mean by it a belief that at the level of insight available to God, all the actions taken, or inactions, are good. Alternatively, for a definition of 'good' that applies to humans rather than to only to God, perhaps that after death, a person's essence, the soul, will recognize that God's actions are all for the good.

It might be felt that such a definition is semantically untenable since definitions of words must apply to descriptions in this universe, and therefore the word 'good' is meaningful only if there is a definition of 'good' which applies in this world. If so, the religious belief that God is all good may perhaps be taken as a belief that each individual is capable of achieving a high state of spiritual development, at which point they will inevitably recognize that God's actions are all for the good.

The Problem of Evil

The question of how it can be that God allows so much evil in the world - 'the problem of evil' - is so important to the Bible that it even forms the basis of an entire book in it, the book of Job.

Elsewhere in the Bible there are various ambiguous pointers to the meaning of 'good' as applied to God, and regarding the source and responsibility for evil in the world. Abraham's challenge to God regarding the impending destruction of Sodom, "shall the judge of the universe not do justice", seems to imply that God is a God of justice, and that justice means justice as apparent to humans. On the other hand, God's message to the prophet "I am the fashioner of light and the creator of darkness, maker of peace and creator of evil" seems to implicate God in the commission of all evil.

However, an answer to the problem of evil is presented only once, in the book of Job. There, essentially God answers Job by stating that the ways of the divine are unfathomable to man.

Good and Evil, Emotion and Logic

Introduction

One can say that the problem of evil as usually formulated by the ordinary person is actually misstated, and there are a few separate issues involved:

· can a religionist believe in any type of God for a universe containing so much evil?

· the Biblical religionist believes in an all-powerful God of mercy, but is confronted by evil in the Bible, and in general human experience, of a magnitude which does not seem consistent with the existence of such a being.

· is it meaningful to speak of God being all-good if this 'good' often seems to us to be evil?

Evil and the Existence of God

It is not logically impossible that the creator of the universe thinks differently than we do, and that this creator's motivations are what we would consider to be evil. It is certainly possible that a feeling that there is too much evil in the world can lead one emotionally to non-belief in a creating God, or to belief in an evil god. However, the fact that seeing the evil in the world can result in disbelief in the existence of a God, or in a good God, would be a fact of human psychology rather than a logical or philosophical axiom regarding the impossibility of the existence of a God - or a good God - in a universe containing evil as perceived by its inhabitants.

If God is the creator of the universe and of man, of the brain, of concepts, of the concept of a concept, it is not at all clear that we can expect to be able to comprehend this God. We certainly cannot demand that God act in accordance with our idea of what God should do, and we can even perhaps expect that when we begin to apply human reasoning or categories to God, we shall arive at contradictions.

Whatever the emotional effect of evil on our beliefs, it is certainly not reasonable to claim that the fact of evil in some way provides a logical counter to the idea of a creating God.

An atheistic conclusion that because there is so much evil in the world, there is necessarily no God, actually derives from a statement of a religious belief; the belief that "if there is a God, this God must operate in a manner comprehensible to me, a manner which is apparent to me is good. If his actions do not seem good to me, then he does not exist". Based on this belief, any event which occurs which is not good in the perception of that person, can be taken as proof that no God exists. Based on this religious belief, such a person may claim to be an 'atheist'.

Evil and the Existence of an All-Good God

If however we believe nevertheless that a creating God exists, and that this God is in fact all-good, we still cannot legitimately expect that God would necessarily act in accordance with our understanding of good. We may however perhaps wonder why it is that God created the universe and us in such a manner that it is not apparent to us that all that God does, or allows to occur, is actually for the good, or is compatible with God's being all-good and all-powerful. Given human psychology, people will wonder why this is so, and will perhaps not be satistfied with some of the answers offered - however the expectation of a comprehensible and satisfying answer is misplaced.

It is certainly possible that because of the evil in the world, someone will conclude that even if there is a creating God, this God is not an all-good God. This conclusion also derives from a statement of a religious belief; the belief that "if there is an all-good God, He must operate in a manner comprehensible to me, a manner which is apparent to me is good even in my present imperfect state. If his actions do not seem good to me, then it is meaningless to me to say that God is all-good". Based on this belief, any event which occurs which is not good in the perception of that person, can be taken as proof that no all-good God exists.

The God of the Bible

Although in theory a transcendent creator God need not be comprehensible to humans, need not operate according to categories and motives describeable to humans, the Bible employs human categories in describing God's actions, and speaks of God as a God of justice and mercy.

Thus although one cannot assume that our conceptions are valid at the level of a being so far above us, just as we could not expect a flea to understand human motivations, the Bible can be seen to imply that humans can legitimately expect to comprehend some aspects of God and God's actions. If this is so, one could claim that if the God of the Bible is allegedly a 'God of mercy', then since the world contains so much that is evil in our judgement, the god of the Bible does not exist. However, it may also be that the attribute of mercy in God's actions or inaction is perceptable only to beings of Abraham's spiritual development, and thus that the above conclusion regarding the non-existence of the Biblical all-merciful all-powerful God is fallacious.

In the creation account, the idea is clearly presented that God is the creator of the universe, and is all powerful, and the account of the creation ends with the statement that "and God saw that it was very good". There is however no attempt to jusify or explain to man - no reason given for creation, just as in the Eden account, man is not told why eating from the tree will be fatal to him.

Although man is imbued with the divine spirit, it is clear that there is a qualitative difference between man and God, and from the lack of justification and explanation one can see that there is either no need, no desire, or no possibility for God to justify divine behaviour to man.

In the Eden account, Man instead of coming closer to God within the context of a universe which is free of all strife and disaster, of all evil, chooses a path leading to a world where there are moral dilemmas. In this plane of existence, there is good and evil, and not only is he the source of actions which are good or evil, but he also perceives the actions of God, direct and through nature, through the prism of the categories of good and evil.

Perhaps for this reason the phrase "and God saw that it was good" is applied on virtually all the days of creation^[3] except in regards to humanity. From the divine perspective all is good, indeed as stated at the conclusion of creation "and God saw all that was made and it was very good"- however from the human perspective this is not always the case.

In the Biblical perspective God is all-powerful, the creator of all, and is all-merciful, all-good. This is not perceptible to man in his ordinary spiritually undeveloped state, and to him it is a paradox, just as are the very concepts with which the creation account opens - the beginning of time, creation ex-nihilo, and the very concept of God.

Paradise, Paradox, and the Mind Body Problem

Genesis and Paradox

According to religious philosophy, Man is connected to the spiritual realm and possesses a non-physical aspect - a 'soul' - as distinguished from the animals. Since the soul is by definition a spiritual entity, not a physical one, this involves the age-old philosophical problems relating to the difficulty of a non-physical entity interacting with a purely physical entity. (Our problem here is therefore a form of the mind-body problem, one that we can term the 'spirit-body problem'.)

In Genesis, the soul-body issue may be hinted at by the phrase “and the spirit of God hovered above the waters”, with its connotation of some type of contact between spirit and matter. Since it was from the waters that life emerged both according to Genesis and according to scientific theory, and most of man's body is water, this connotation is also of a connection between man's spirit which derives from that of God, and his body, which is composed of water.

The almost shocking statement that man was created "in the image of God”, and that after causing man to emerge from the physical elements at hand, “God breathed into him the living spirit”, present a further contrast and connection between the spiritual and physical dimensions of man, his soul and his body.

The opening three words of Genesis - translated as “In the beginning God created” - throw the reader immediately into the thick of paradox and indefinable concepts. Time cannot have a beginning; a God who is above and beyond the physical cannot be grasped or defined; and the concept of creation ex-nihilo - bringing existense from non-existence - is virtually incomprehensible. Thus the opening three words of Genesis (in the original Hebrew), namely the words "beginning", "God", and "created", are all beyond intuitive grasp.

First there is told of the dual nature of man as created from the material - the earth - yet who posseses a soul - the breath of God. This is followed by the Garden of Eden account relating of the existential loneliness of man without a mate, and of the emergence of free willed choice, of conscious moral decision. As in the book of Job, and in Ecclesiastes as well, paradoxes are presented with no answer provided - except for the 'non-answer' that man cannot expect to comprehend the ways of God, creator of all the universe. ^[4]

Expulsion from Eden and Existential Alienation

Genesis is not necessarily to be understood as implying that the Garden of Eden was a physical place - instead it may represent a state of mind.

Talking snakes, trees of knowledge and of life, animals arising from the dust, and other phenomena in the Garden of Eden are not the type of event which take place in the physical universe of today. As Rambam states^[b]:"in reality the scriptural account of creation cannot be taken literally", and: "the garden of Eden account.....is intentended to be allegorical........."(approx. quote)

The eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil represents the first act of true moral choice, so that the entire account becomes an allegory for the emergence of free willed moral consciousness and represents the development of mind beyond the confines of the purely physical, beyond the realm of determinism and randomness, into connection with the mental realm of the Idea, and the spiritual realm of the soul. The expulsion from the Garden represents the loss of instinctive, natural reaction, and the entry into the existential universe of moral dilemma, where the connection between mind, soul, and body seem impossible, and manís existence and nature transforms from paradisical to paradoxical.

The Mind Body Problem

The mind-body problem has occupied philosophers and mystics for millenia. Interaction between the physical and the nonphysical, while necessary to explain the connection between mind and brain (mind and body), seems impossible. Flaws have been discovered in all the mechanisms propounded over the ages, and it remains perhaps the central mystery of philosophy, while increasingly is becoming a puzzle of science as well.

Consciousness and free will are qualities of mind rather than of body (brain), and free will has itself never been successfully defined since it seems to defy known patterns of logic and causality. How such phenomena exist, and how they arose, are at present not only unknown, but seem even unknowable.

Free-willed consciousness is not modelable in human rational terms, it is essentially a mystery. Since it is precisely this mystery which is the subject of the garden of Eden account, one can perhaps understand the appropriateness of allegory to a discussion of this issue, and of the symbolism employed in the Garden of Eden account to describe the onset of free-willed consciousness.

The Uniqueness of Humanity:

Godelian Absolutes and Transcendence

If the essence of free-willed consciousness is acausality, then results need not be derived via causal chains of logic from more basic information and perhaps thus "new information" can indeed be "created". In addition, perhaps by the exercise of free-willed consciousness in creative activity, one can also decrease entropy by creating information - a true act of creativity in itself ^[5].

Creativity, Transcendence, and Genesis

According to the Traditional interpretation of the creation account, God left creation incomplete and challenged mankind to perform that which is necessary to bring it to a proper completion.

Humanity possesses a connection to the transcendent realm not only in that it is challenged to follow the correct path to justice but in that it is a creative being in its own right, capable of connecting to the Godelian and Platonic absolutes, and eventually to perfect the cosmos via increasing its order and decreasing its entropy..

Transcendant Realms

The nature of the fundamental reality underlying all of existence has intrigued philosophers, scientists, and mystics throughout the ages. Some have claimed that it is fundamentally physical, some that it is spiritual, others that it is a thought in the mind of an intelligent being, and more recent speculations have likened it to software (computer programs). or pure information.

Godel, as we have seen, felt that his discoveries regarding the fundamentals of logic, mathematics and human intuition indicated that "sets and concepts exist externally to any individual's activities"^[6], an idea similar to that of the ancient Platonists regarding the independent existence of certain Truths. Indeed, he wrote a paper discussing how one could "prove the consistency of mathematics by assuming that mental objects have an objective existence"^[7].

According to Gödel, although "…rational thought can never penetrate to the final, ultimate truth", nevertheless man can interact with these truths. These truths manifest themselves in the human intuition and ^[8]"…may represent an aspect of objective reality, but, as opposed to the sensations, their presence in us may be due to another kind of relationship between ourselves and reality."

In this conception there exists a realm of 'reality' beyond the physical in which there resides the truths of mathematics and logic, but these truths are not accessible to the rational mind, nor to sensory perception, nor to formal computational systems. Instead there is some unique aspect of the human being which allows a connection to the underlying reality behind the physical universe, beyond that perceived by the rational mind and by sensory perception.

As we have seen, the human brain is unique in that it possesses a free-willed consciousness, and a creative intelligence - which may derive from the self-causative nature of its free-willed consciousness - allowing it to transcend the limitations of entropy and information to initiate creative activity. Further, as we have seen, it is this property of free-willed consciousness which allows the human mind to transcend determinism and randomness, and which may be connected to the transformation of the physical universe from pseudo-physical to full reality. It is perhaps also the acausal nature of the human mind which endows it with the ability to transcend the physical universe and connect with the realm of the absolute truths postulated by Plato and Godel.

The Spiritual Universe

The idea of the existence of a transcendant realm beyond the physical, a realm which is accessible to humans, is also present in the Kabbalah, and there it is stated more explicitly that the critical faculty which allows humans to connect to this realm is their free-willed consciousness.

According to the Kabbalah, and as explained in the teachings of Ramkhal, creation consists of two parts - the physical and the spiritual - and there is a parallel between the two:

"(God) made this world corresponding to the world above, and everything which is above has its counterpart here below...and yet all constitute a unity."^{[9] [10]}

The spiritual cosmos is a universe of ëformsí, of potential forces, where concepts are conceived potentially and then translated into physical actuality. The universe of the forms is therefore known as the universe of thought, and the forms or forces are the ground of existence of the physical universe ^[11]. The only processes in the physical universe which can directly affect the spiritual forms, are acts of human free will

Thus, the most basic level of reality is that of the universe of thought, of potentiality, and it is from this thought-universe of potentia that the physical universe derives its reality. The transcendental forces of the spiritual realm are the roots of all that is in the physical realm, and the two can interact via acts of man's free will.

Creation, and the Creation Accounts

The universe of spiritual forms was the "blueprint" of the physical universe, and thus it was created first. The existence of the physical universe and natural law came about as an 'emanation' from the spiritual Forms.

As part of the parallelism between the two realms, there is also a physical entity corresponding to this blueprint - the Torah. The Torah gives the rules of interaction between the physical and spiritual universes, based upon the operation of moral consciousness, and it begins with the creation and Eden accounts as preface.

Rather than being a description of the creation of the physical universe, therefore, the creation account can be interpreted as a description of the creation of the universe of spiritual forms, while the Eden account relates to the emergence of the active ingredient which can uniquely manipulate this realm - free will^[12].

Furthermore, it is only a free willed being which can cause the potentially existing physical universe to emerge into existence from its blueprint universe of spiritual forms, just as is the case with the observer bringing the physical universe into reality from within the potential universe of quantum pseudo-reality. Free will is then that which both catalyzes the emergence of the physical universe from its spiritual counterpart, and which serves as the connecting link between the two realms, so that it is natural that the creation and Eden accounts are juxtaposed.

Man's Free Will as Catalyst of Creation: Traditional Jewish Sources

Genesis tells us that Gd rested, after creation, from all His work "which he created to do". The midrash explains that the words "to do" [zeyrl] means "everything that Gd created, requires the 'doing' of man". Thus man is partner in creation and in our scenario his free will - and role as observer - brings into actuality the universe created by Gd.

Another source relates to the Tree of Knowledge. According to our speculations here, the universe emerged into full existence when human free will emerged, symbolized by the partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. That eating of the Tree of Knowledge could enable man to bring an entire universe into existence is an idea actually found in the Midrash^[13]. There we are told of the Rabbinic opinion that the snake tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree by telling them that "from this tree Gd ate and created the universe" and that "Gd does not want you to eat of the Tree because he does not want you to create other worlds".

The Shadow Universe

As we have seen, according to Jewish mystical teachings the basis of all of physical existence is the cosmos of spiritual reality. Free willed actions in the physical universe affect the spiritual cosmos, however not all that is to be achieved in the spiritual realm can be comprehended when viewed from the limited perspective of its shadow realm, the physical universe.

That the physical universe is the "shadow" of the spiritual realm is an old idea - indeed some kabbalistic sources state that the expression "tzel sha-dai" "the shadow of the Lord" refers to nature. One can further connect "tzelem elokim" "the image of God" to "tzel Elokim" "the shadow of God".

According to the "Nefesh Hachayim", "tzelem Elokim" refers to man's ability to construct and give life to spiritual realms above him^[14].

The interaction between the physical and spiritual realm can be allegorized by a shadow - the shadow and that which casts it do not interact, yet the shadow imitates all of its motions. Only when the entire context is seen, the light source and the area around the shadow, can one understand that the shadow represents a lack of interaction relative to the lit area surrounding it^[15]. In this allegory, the light is the spiritual realm, the shadow is the physical, and that which casts the shadow is the soul and free-will, and the spiritual and physical realm interact only in the sense that the physical is the absence of the spiritual - a form of tzimtzum.

The universe was created from the blueprint provided by the Torah, and derives its existence from the spiritual level above, and the Way specified by the Torah is the means whereby free-willed beings can affect this spiritual level to further the goal of creation.

Summary

According to our speculations, it is only free will which can bring forth the physical universe from the potentiality of the universe of the spiritual forms. Thus the universe cannot emerge into physical reality until the emergence of a moral being, just as is the case of quantum physics, as discussed earlier.

Both quantum metaphysics and the Kabballah therefore indicate that the universe would begin its true existence at the emergence of the first moral being - giving a creation scenario parallel to that portrayed in Genesis, and providing a thematic link between the creation and Eden accounts.

Humanity and God as Partners in Creation

The universe was created from nothing, but was designed to be in a net-zero-energy and entropy balance, with matter, energy, space and time converting into each other, but always with net zero sum. Once the universe and the laws of nature exist, it is consistent to say that the universe can emerge from nothing, since it has the same zero energy as oes nothing. Yet, it is only after the universe and its laws exist that this can be said. Therefore it is necessary that there first be an act of creation from nothing, to introduce this system of universe and laws, which can then exist logically on its own.

The universe began with low entropy and low complexity, and is running down like an unwinding spring, with constantly increasing entropy, but with increasing complexity in return. The complexity allows the emergence of free willed intelligent beings who can then utilize their free will to change the balance.

Nothing can be gained without the sacrifice of something else, the universe remains always in the same overall energy-entropy sum - except for the operation of human creativity and free willed choice. These are beyond the realm of causal physical law, and can influence the net sum of the universe. An automatically-achieved perfection is meaningles - only perfection achieved at a price, as a result of struggle, is meaningful, and therefore the universe was created deliberately incomplete and imperfect.

Since only humans are attracted to the non-good, only their free willed choice of the good is meaningful, and only these choices can introduce into the cosmos what was not there previously. Only free willed acts of choice are non-causal and therefore can create a net plus from nothing just as the initial creation created the universe from nothing, and just as acts of creativity reduce entropy and save the universe from dissipation into a heat death.

Humans are parters of the divine in creation, they are created in the image of God in that tthey have a free will, can be creative, and as a result can maintain the universe's existence against dissipation, and raise its level beyond its intiial net-zero stage.

The creation account and the Eden account deal with the complementary parts in creation played by God and humanity, relating God's act of initial creation, the bestowing of the divine image on humanity, the command to be fruitful and complete the universe, and the onset of free willed moral choice - all necessary steps in the creation, maintainance, and spiritiual evolution of the universe.

Circularity, Free Will, Torah, Choice and the Tree of Knowledge

If Adam did not have free will prior to eating from the tree of knowledge, how is it that Adam chose to eat of the tree? How could he be punished if he did not understand the distinction between good and evil? How could it be that a state of free will, and therefore the ability to do good and avoid evil, is the result of a disobedience of God's will? If the Torah is the purpose of creation, and the Torah can be fulfilled only by a being who makes moral choices, struggling with good and evil, how can it be that the ability to fulfil the Torah was only achieved by man through a violation of God's commandment?

Furthermore, being in Eden together with a great abundance and only one forbidden tree might seem idyllic from some perspectives, but anyone familiar with human nature would know that such a situation is almost guaranteed to lead to transgression. Essentially Adam was told:

"eat what you wish,

do what you wish,

go anywhere,

try everything -

oh, but just don't eat from that tree over there -

I'll teach you myriads of secrets,

I'll take you many interesting places, show you good times -

just remember not to eat of the tree over there -

anything you want you can have, you are the master of all that is here -

except for that tree of course -

you'll live forever, you'll never want for anything....but, as to the tree.......".

Virtually any human in this situation would immediately ignore all the bounty and beauty and walk over to the tree, and stare at it, and think about it...... As creator of mankind, surely God knew that the human nature God designed mankind with would eventually lead Adam to eat from the tree^[16].

In fact it has been proposed by various sources, including R. Yosef Yozel Horowitz^[17], that God desired man to eat from the tree of knowledge and to thereby accept the burden of moral responsibility and follow the Torah lifestyle. One could then say that God desired man to eat from the tree of knowledge, and was simply advising Adam that to do so would be hazardous to him, and therefore that Adam had to make the decision himself. That is, Adam did not have a sense of moral obligation or a sense of good and evil; although he did perhaps have some type of free will, this was not actuated by moral dilemmas, which were beyond his intuitive grasp.

Alternatively, perhaps that the distinction between good and evil was an artificial one at his level of insight. His free will allowed him to choose between accepting this burden of moral awareness and its potential for spiritual growth, or to remain in his current comfortable status, at a high but static level of spiritual development.

One of the central distinguishing elements of Jewish philosophy and mysticism, and of the Torah lifestyle, is the belief in the potential for holiness in all activity. Nothing is inherently good or evil, but rather the use to which they are put can be for the good or for evil. Every inner desire can be channeled towards ends which increase the good, every mundane object or activity can be directed towards achieving beneficial results in the service of God or of one's fellow being, and this is what it means to live a life of holiness. From a kabbalistic perspective, such action liberates the sparks of holiness present in all entities and processes, and brings forward the reintegration of the physical universe into the spiritual cosmos.

Even urges and drives which are potentially harmful to oneself and to others can be channeled to positive activity, and this is the challenge facing humanity. In Jewish tradition, even the "evil inclination" in a person can be the stimulus for action which is beneficial, as the Talmud states: "the jealousy of scholars (stimulates them to study ever more and thereby) increases knowledge". All that motivates people can be used for the benefit or detriment of mankind, and these motivations are necessary even though they are often misapplied - as the Talmud says: "without the inclination (sexual desire, people would not marry and raise families and therefore) the world would be desolate'.

The quintessential Biblical example of an "evil urge" is the snake in Eden - where the snake is understood as an externalization of the evil impulse in mankind. Even here though, the desire to disobey God is channeled into a direction which is beneficial - the acceptance of the burden of moral responsibility, and the challenge of living in a physical universe and working for its reintegration into the spiritual cosmos from which it was generated.

Circularity, Existence and Free Will

One cannot choose to exist, since to chose one has to already exist, and this introduces a bias in the decision, since it may be that an existent being will not be inclined to prefer the termination of its own existence.

Similarly, one cannot choose whether or not one wishes to be given the capability of free choice, since to choose this, one must have free choice already. And, perhaps a being with free choice will be biased against having this freedom removed.

However, Adam was in a sense created in a state in which he could choose to have free will - or free-willed moral consciousness - and choose whether or not to exist forever in a spiritual state, or to exist as a mortal being in a physical universe, but with the potential to rise higher than was possible in the static garden of Eden.

The creation and Eden accounts symbolize the onset of those two aspects which are circular and self-referential - existence and free will - and do so in a manner which in itself implies circularity; the creation of a being who chooses to exist, and the free willed choice of a created being which leads to the onset of moral choice, and of physical existence itself^[18].

In the Image of God

Some of the great paradoxes which the kabballah deals with relate to the problem of there existing anything other than God. Some of the basic paradoxes of philosophy relate to the mind-body problem. Religious philosophy grapples with the problem of evil.

A further problem in religious philosophy is that people may feel that they were not asked if they wish to exist at all, and therefore they are not responsible for the consequences of their existence, that is, their actions^[19]. They may claim that God had 'no right' to create them and thereby to subject them to the inevitable pains of life.

We will find that one approach to understanding reality can shed light on all of them simultaneously.

Fragmentation and Reintegration

One can perhaps allegorically imagine God as desiring to increase his level of spirituality, and dividing some aspect of his 'personality' into various fragments^[20] which are unaware of their divine nature. Then, a regimen is introduced, and these fragments strive to cope successfully, achieving moral and spiritual growth in the process, until they are reintegrated into the whole.

If all human consciousness is seen as an element of this fragmented aspect of the divine personality, then human interaction and moral struggle are actually the reintegration process of the divine fragments, as seen from the perspective of the fragments themselves.

Rather than seeing human beings as exterior creations of God who must suffer the consequences of God's decision to create them, not even having been consulted about whether to have been created at all, one can then see humanity as simply an aspect of God. Human suffering is then not inflicted by God on man, but rather it is part of the struggle which God has voluntarily undergone in order to grow; the fragmentation which was a necessary prerequisite for struggle and therfore growth also necessarily resulted in the creation of limited consciousnesses, unaware of their true unitary nature, and the illusory perception by these fragments of the divine consciousness that they are separate beings. Only after complete reintegration can all the components understand that all they had undergone was the result of their own undertaking.

The allegory above addresses the kabbalistic question of how there can exist that anything other than God, by claiming that all consciousness is part of God rather than 'other than' God. The mind-body problem falls away, since all is spiritual, in analogy to the the idealist position which postulates that all is mind. And, the problem of evil is dissipated, since no being is inflicting pain on any other being - rather all are in their fundamental essense part of one being, and all is occuring according to the will of that being.

The Creation and Eden Accounts

One can possibly see in the creation and Eden accounts some hints at the above allegory.

At first there is only God. Then God creates the universe, but there is no independently existent consciousness. Then comes the creation of mankind, and the infusion into man of 'the soul of life', so that there is an independent consciousness 'other than God, but which is nevertheless part of the divine unit - as implied by the wording of Genesis in the overtly paradoxical "let us make Man in our image".

As the Eden account relates, first there was a unitary being, then a split into two. The process of fragmentation continues with the emergence into moral awareness so that there is now not only a physical universe 'other than' God, but an independent consciousness, then two independent consciousnesses, and then an independent will.

Following this is the creation of the perception of a duality of good and evil, and the introduction of pain, suffering, and mortality, and then of the struggle between the independent free-willed consciousnesses among themselves, and between them and the divine law.

Nevertheless, the path to the tree of life still exists, being guarded for its eventual use at some future time, when all consciousness will return to its original unity, and all free-will will be directed to the divine law, becoming thereby reintegrated into a unity, raising the physical universe and all consciousness to a purely spiritual level, reinacting in reverse the process of creation itself.

Will, Fate, And Eden

Various cultures have produced philosophies wherein man is viewed as acting out his fate, without the ability to affect events in the large, and without perhaps even the ability to freely choose his own decisions. In the creation and garden of Eden accounts there is presented a diametrically opposite view.

In what is a quintessential act of will, although Man is told that the tree is not to be eaten from, he goes ahead and eats. And who is it that has stated that the tree is not to be eaten from - it is God the creator of all, of man, of the universe, of the tree itself.

In this way it is made clear that man is not bound by fate, that he can set a path for himself that is counter to anything 'written in the stars', even counter to the wishes of the power that created man and the universe itself.

This idea makes manifest the thematic unity and continuity of the creation and Eden accounts:

In the creation account man is told that there is a God who has created all, created the constellations, the sun and moon, and man himself. That this creator has given man the ability to rule over all, over the land and its vegetation, and over the beasts of the land, the fish in the waters, and the birds in the sky, and the ability and imperative to 'complete the creation'. That is, rather than being ruled by the beasts or any other creations including the constellations, man is the master of his fate.

Then in the Eden account man is told that he is responsible for his actions, that he can choose freely between alternatives and bears responsibility for his choice. That the power which created the universe and which granted him dominion over all within it has also granted him moral autonomy, so that not only is man not ruled by some 'fate' 'written in the stars', but he can exert his will to affect events even in a direction counter to the creator's own will; it is the will of the creator of all existence that its creation, man, who has chosen to have moral autonomy, shall have an independent internalized moral imperative, and a free will which is independent of all forces, even of the creator himself.

The God of History

One of the central philosophical ideas introduced by the Bible is that of a march of history as opposed to the conceptions of many pagan cultures which saw human history as a succession of random events, or predetermined events, or as part of an infinite cyclical pattern. History as presented in the Bible is instead a progression leading from a beginning to some desired end.

Furthermore, the Bible introduced not merely the concept of God the unique creator of all as opposed to the various creative forces of pagan conceptions, and the concept of historical development itself, but also the combination of the two, by the introduction of the concept of the God of history. Rather than merely presenting a God who created the universe and left it to its own devices, the Bible presents a picture of the creator of the universe as constantly involved in the development of human history.

Perhaps even more radically, the Bible makes it clear that the divine intervention is nether random and capricious, nor is it predetermined, but rather depends on the actions of mankind, and derives from a moral purpose. It is made clear that divine interventions in history occur to further a certain divine purpose in human history, and also occur due to moral lapses or achievements of mankind. History operates according to a moral law superposed on the ordinary natural law, natural law itself being a creation of God.

Not only moral obligations, but also the commandments revealed in the Bible are linked to the action of natural law as it affects humanity. At various points, the Bible states that if certain commands are kept, there will be rain, and agricultural plenty, whereas non-compliance will bring in its wake famine and starvation, so that the operation of nature is linked to the fulfilment of the commands of God, natural law being linked to human ritual and moral behaviour.

The Creation and Eden Accounts

The creation and Eden accounts serve very well as introductions to the rest of the Bible in this context. In the creation account it is made clear that the God who is commanding is the God who created the universe and its laws of nature, and therefore the operation of the laws of nature can be linked later in the Bible to the fulfillment of the commandments. Further, the being who is commanded, mankind, is also a creation of the same God, and therefore there can be no possibility that he is incapable of fulfilling the commandments, or is unsuited to them.

The Eden account further makes it clear that there is a moral dimension built into the fabric of the universe, and that the physical nature in which humanity operates, the conditions of his existence, are tied to his past moral performance.

Thus the creation and Eden accounts separately and together form the introduction to the major philosophical, religious, and metaphysical innovations inherent in the rest of the Bible.

Reward and Punishment

The creation account seemingly tells of the creation of all that exists, "the heavens and the earth", yet there is no mention of what is generally associated with the word "heaven" in the subsequent passages; instead it is clear that the "heavens" refer to physical celestial bodies and vapours and so on. And although Rabbinical tradition and kaballah do speak of the soul's eventual return to 'the Garden of Eden, there is no unambiguous mention of life after death, of heaven or hell, throughout the five books of Moses, and certainly not in the creation or Eden accounts.

There is however a clear implication in the creation account that the creator is beyond the physical, as the physical universe is merely one of his creations. Further, it is directly implied that the essence of man is the spirit which was infused into him by God, and it is clearly stated that man is created in the image and form of God. Together, this implies quite strongly that the essence of man, being from God, is beyond the physical, and therefore is eternal. In ordinary terms, the implication is that man possesses an eternal soul. As deriving directly from God, as eternal, the soul likely preceded the physical universe and life in it and continues after it, i.e. after the death of the physical body^[21].

There is however no mention anywhere that man's soul would undergo punishment after death. Instead the implication seems to be clear that if man suffers, it is as a result of his actions, not through punishment. The snake and the earth were cursed, but man and woman were not. They did not suffer direct punishment, they suffered only the result of their actions - as God stated, they would become mortal if they ate, and so it was, with all the concommitant unpleasantness and difficulty of that status.

Man chose to aquire a moral awareness, to accept the burden of moral activity, and to bear the moral responsibility for his actions. Rather than remaining in Eden, man aquired free-willed consciousness, the knowledge of good and evil, and set out into the mundane physical universe to attempt to raise himself to spiritual heights through the mastery of the struggle between good and evil.

Eden was not destroyed, nor was it transformed as were the man and woman banished from it. Instead, after the banishment from Eden there was a guard placed over it "to watch over the path to the tree of life". The implication can be drawn that there was still a role to be played by this garden and by the tree of life within it, and that at some point man would be returned there.

"And they were ashamed" is the closest to a negative state directly incurred by the eating, and this is the basis for various traditional interpretations of purgatory - that man when shed of his physical body, will deeply regret the immoral actions he committed while enclosed in a physical body, and through the pain of regret will cleanse himself of the taint, reaching a re-purified state, and thereby gain re-entry to Eden. No hell, no punishment, but rather an emotional pain - perhaps more deep than any mere physical pain - but a pain which is not a punishment but a side effect of the realization and regret, a pain which is therefore part of the ascent of the soul back to its Edenic heights, and perhaps to reintegration with its source, God.

In sum, the creation account teaches of the creation of physical existence by God, and of the infusing of a divine soul into man, thereby hinting at the existence of the soul after death. The Eden account tells of a garden beyond the realms of physical law as we know it, a garden existing therefore perhaps in some spiritual realm. Then there is told of the aquisition of free-willed moral consciousness and the resultant exit from this Eden, but that there is a way back to the garden and its tree of eternal life, hinting in this way of the eventual return of the eternal soul, in a repurified state, to this spiritual Eden.

Free Will and the Expulsion from Eden

Prior to eating of the tree of knowledge, Adam existed in an environment in which God was manifest. God spoke directly to Adam, there was total abundance, no need for work, there were miraculous trees, talking snakes, and man was possibly immortal. Adam could not doubt the existence of God in such a situation.

However, in this type of situation, for a being who comprehends moral responsibility, moral dilemmas are virtually impossible. Indeed, as soon as Adam ate from the tree, and understood the distinction between good and evil, he cowered in shame from God. Had Adam remained in Eden, his newly acquired free-willed moral beinghood would possibly have been powerless to express itself, since the overwhelming presence of God in Eden might preclude true free choice.

The expulsion from Eden was therefore neither punishment nor exile. Instead it was a necessary change in the metaphysical status of mankind and of the universe he inhabited, from a spiritual reality to an environment ruled by 'natural law', an environment which allowed for the freedom of choice necessary for moral drama.

In this new reality - which in the context of the traditional understanding of Genesis took place at the close of the sixth day of creation - the heretofore spiritual universe became a physical entity, self-consistent and operating harmoniously on the level of physicality, ecology, mathematics, logic, in accordance with a set of 'natural law'.

Quite possibly God wished for mankind to choose the burden of moral responsibility - symbolized by 'eating of the tree of knowledge' - but left this decision to man himself. When man chose moral responsibility, there was therefore no punishment involved - even the curses at the end of the Eden account apply only to the earth and snake, not to Adam and Eve.

Instead, it was necessary that man's reality be transformed from a God-manifest one to a universe in which God was at least one step removed, where God's actions in the universe would be perceived by man as the operation of a set of 'natural law', and where it would be up to the choice of the individual to consider this 'natural law' as deriving from God or not. Indeed, Adam was catapulted into a state in which it was necessary to work for one's food, there was pain and misunderstanding, and where God was not manifest directly - and in fact after the exit from the reality-state of Eden, there is no mention of Adam perceiving a communication from the God he spoke to so freely while 'in Eden'.

"Is it from the forbidden tree that you have eaten"

It is interesting to note that Eve was not commanded by God not to eat of the tree of knowledge, as she was formed after the command was given to Adam. And, furthermore, the command was to not eat "from the tree" which according to Tradition was edible, not from "the fruit of the tree". Thus when Adam ate from the fruit which Eve had given him, he was in a doubly-removed way^[22] not violating God's command.

And indeed, when confronted by God, Adam states that he did not eat from the tree, but rather he - technically - ate from the woman, that is, from what Eve gave to him. Thus Adam not only did not eat from the tree but ate only the fruit, he also ate this fruit from his wife rather than from the tree.

It is this division of labor which may have motivated the formation of Eve, and to do so after the command was given. Indeed, the decision to form a helpmeet for Adam was made immediately after the command not to eat from the tree, clearly connecting the need for a helpmeet to the existence of the command not to eat of the tree.

Thus, the stage was set for man to choose to eat of the tree of knowledge of his own choice despite the warning that it would lead to a great burden and death, and to do so in a way which would not violate the letter of God's actual command. Since no direct violation was involved, the result was not punishment or immediate death as was implied previously, but rather only the necessary consequences of the choice made by man - mortal existence in a non-God-manifest physical universe ruled by 'natural law'.

Eve's Choice

At crucial juctures in Biblical narrative, the fateful choice determinig the futures of those involved is taken by the women. It is Sarah who realizes that Isaac is the true heir of Abraham and exiles Ishmael, and it is Rivka (Rebecca) who arranges to have Jacob chosen over Esau. Miriam, Yocheved, Shifra and Puah are responsible for seeing to it that Moses is born and kept safe. Tamar takes the bold initiative and choses Yehuda, and Ruth chooses Boaz, and from these two issued David, King of Israel, and the progenitor of the messianic line of future kings.

It is however Eve who is the prototype of all these, who boldy goes and chooses to eat of the tree, and to give Adam as well, thereby changing the entire course of events as recounted in the Bible.

Physicality as a Vehicle for Spiritual Attainment

Spiritual attainment is possible (only) in a non-perfect universe, by bringing it to perfection. Similarly, physicality is actually the (only) mode of existence which allows for the possibility of spiritual growth.

Mankind ("Adam"), existing initially in a perfect and therefore non-challenging spiritual cosmos, was transformed into a physical being existing in a physical universe, to face the burden of moral dilemmas. The purpose: to employ free will and moral understanding to chose the good over the bad, to use the challenges of everyday life to reach perfection and reattain the previous level of spiritual development.

As pointed out in the Zohar and Midrash^[23] humanity is commanded to rule over the land and all its life, to complete the creation, to study and control nature ("and God brought all the animals to man to see..."), rather than rejecting the physical as evil, or as an illusion to be transcended. Humanity is commanded to be fruitful and multiply, to become one with one's spouse - to engage in worldy tasks and bring his moral insight to bear in all his endeavors, thereby liberating the sparks of holiness inherent in all creation and action, raising all of physical existence to the level of spiritual development sufficient for it to be reabsorbed into the spiritual realm, and so that his essence ("and God breathed into man the spirit of life") can reunite with God.

The Universe of Spiritual Forms

A further connection between the creation and Eden accounts and the rest of the Torah is provided by the underlying theme of the ritual aspect of the Torah - that worship of God, or correct spiritual action, involves many activities whose purpose in not (directly) apparent.

In the context of the Bible, Mankind, if aware of that which underlay his existence, would realize that his essence is the spirit which God breathed into him, and that fundamentally he is connected to the divine due to his being created in 'the image of God'. From this perspective, as man's environment is the non-God-manifest universe 'outside of Eden', then underlying all that he could sense, and as the basis of all of physical existence, there is a cosmos of spiritual reality. His actions in the physical universe would affect the spiritual cosmos, however not all that had to be achieved in the spiritual realm could be comprehended when viewed from the limited perspective of its shadow realm, the physical universe.

The universe was created from the blueprint provided by the Torah, and derives its existence from the spiritual level above, and the Way specified by the Torah is the means whereby free-willed beings can affect this spiritual level to further the goal of creation.

The description of Adam as a being created in the image of God, with the 'breath of God' within him, and of the physical universe as a derivative of God, and as existing 'outside of' the more fundamental spiritual realm of 'Eden', therefore prepares the ground for the later commandments which involve rituals whose purpose is not comprehensible from the perspective of the physical universe and natural law. Thus, at the level of metaphysical justification, there is a connection between these central themes of the creation and Eden accounts in the first chapters of the Torah, and the ritual aspects of the Torah introduced later.

The Creation and Eden Accounts and Biblical Ritual Law

The creation and Eden accounts play the role of introduction to the ritual, moral, and religious law sections of the Torah in the sense that they introduce prototypes of the main categories of such laws.

In the creation account it is made clear that God is the creator of all, including the sun, moon and stars, and that there is nothing that man can perceive whose existence does not derive from God. Therefore, man is expected to recognize the existence of God, and not to recognize any other entity as a deity. This forms the basis of the first two of the ten commandments, and of many of the laws related later in the Torah.

The commandment to be fruitful and multiply, the newly acquired awareness of sexual mores, and especially the injunction to "cleave unto his wife", form the basis of another of the ten commandments, and all of the other laws of sexual morality in the Torah.

God's 'resting' from creation on the seventh day - 'shabbat' - sets the ground for the commandment for man to rest on the shabbat as well, and forms the basis also for the cessation of weekday activities on all the holidays, which are also called 'shabbaton'.

In the Eden account the central prohibition involves a forbidden food, which is the prototype for a large group of commandments in the Torah. It is also the prototype of laws concerning the taking without permission of that which does not belong to one.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Adam is not permitted to kill for any purpose - he is to eat only of the trees and vegetation, to rule over the animals but not to eat them (this was only permitted to Noah and his children after the flood). Indeed, when they become needful of clothing, it is pointedly God who provides them with leather garments (which can of course in any case be taken from a dead animal rather than killing one for that purpose). This of course contains the seeds of all the laws relating to causing harm to another being, including the commandment prohibiting murder^[24].

In this way, the major categories of laws later presented in the Torah are introduced in its opening chapters, in the creation and Eden accounts.

^[1] As the passage states (Gen.3:22) "man has become as one of it [mimenu]" - where now one can understand "it" [mimenu] as referring to the tree, as it does elsewhere in that chapter.

^[2] According to tradition, the creation and Eden accounts refer to the same essential process. Humanity was created on the sixth day, and the Eden account tells of the events which occured on that day, so that the eating of the tree of knowledge and its aftermath took place prior to the conclusion of the creation process at the end of the sixth day, when the universe became a self-consistent physical entity operating according to 'natural law'. Thus the reference to "Adam" is to the essence of humanity at a point prior to the end of creation and the institution of natural physical law.

Since the essense of a human being is the soul ("and God breathed into man the spirit of life'), the pre-natural law "Adam" or mankind refers to the collective soul of humanity, so that in the present context the Eden account tells us that prior to the creation of the physical universe and the laws of nature, the collective soul of mankind accepted upon itself the burden of moral obligation. (This is similar to the traditional belief that all the souls of the Jewish people ever to be born were present at Sinai and accepted the Torah, making it binding on all future generations.) The Eden account is then an allegorical reference to this event.

^[3] See the discussions in the midrash and classical commentaries.

^[4] This was in text here, but seems like a non-sequitar : The big questions of why the universe exists, what is God, how can spirit and body coexist, what is free will, are beyond us - at least at present. Thematically however, there is an interelationship between meaning purpose and free will, and existence creation mind/body and spirit/body, so that the accounts of the creation and the Garden of Eden take on a new light individually, and in juxtaposition to each other.

^[5] [See p. 372-top p373 re: Entropy , in Jammer "Conceptual..."]

^[6][Rucker, pages 175-176 referring to Gödel's "What is Cantor's Number"]

^[7] ibid, p. 177

^[8] ibid. p. 176. see also p. 301-302

^[9] Zohar: Exodus 20a :#359: commentary on: "and Moses shepherded Yithro's sheep".

^[10] See Ramkhal [Luzatto] "The Way of Gd" ["Derekh Hashem"].

^[11] In the word of R. Aryeh Kaplan^[11]: "Man's thoughts and the information in his mind are therefore considered part of the physical world, see Yad, T'shuvah 8:3. The universe ..... of the Forces is Beriyah (Creation). Besides meaning Force, the word Koach also means "potential".....Concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces, and then translated into action..... The Kabbalists therefore speak of the world of the Forces as the universe of thought....."

^[12] The creation of the physical realm itself is related in the passages after the Garden of Eden account - which form essentially the third creation account.

^[13] Genesis Rabbah 19:6,

^[14] Mishnah Avot: "Da ma lema'ala mimcha" (Know what is above {of} you) = "Da, ma shelema'ala, mimcha (hu)" (Know, that which is above, from you [it is]".

^[15] Of course a shadow can only be defined in reference to the lit portion around it.

^[16] See the Midrash "Fathers of R. Natan" chapter 1, where R. Shimon ben Elazar and R. Shimon bar Yochai may be making a similar point about Adam and his situation.

^[17] "der alter fon Slabodka", in the opening chapter of his "Madregat Ha'adam".

^[18] Thus not only are the creation and Eden accounts related, but even the form of these accounts are appropriate to the self-referential and circular nature of their contentSee Ch. "Existence,Free Will and Self-Causation".

^[19] Even such a consultation would be 'unfair' since to be consulted one has to be created, and once one exists, one might not wish to be terminated, leaving no real choice.

^[20] an allegorical adaptation and interpretation of the phrase "Let us make man in our image".

^[21] Before and after are not defined where time is non-existent (outside the physical universe) and therefore one can substitute ‘beyond’, or ‘logically prior’ for these terms.

^[22] Halachically one does not erect doubly-removed protections around God’s prohibitions.

^[23] "which God created to do".

^[24] Of course the full expression of condemnation for murder follows shortly in the next account, that of Cain and Abel. And, it is there that the Torah introduces clearly the doctrine of free willed choice, and the ability to overcome inner inclinations to evil.

The remaining commandments of the ten are also hinted at in the creation and Eden accounts. "Therefore shalt man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife" hints at an obligation to help them until setting up one's own family, and therefore implies the need for a certain respect for, and obedience to, one's parents.

Adam bears possible false witness against his wife, blaming her for the eating of the fruit, and the snake does so as well by deliberately quoting God in an incorrect fashion when speaking to Eve. This is also a false usage of the name of God, and it is therefore taking God's name in vain.

In this way, all of the ten commandments are presaged, or alluded to, in the creation and Eden accounts.