Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I am going by the dictionary codified meaning:

2.4 Have personal experience of (an emotion or situation)
‘a man who had known better times’

No you’re not – you’re going by just one part of the definition. It also means, “be aware of”, “have a relationship with” etc. If Vlad had intended just one, narrow meaning of it (ie, “experienced”) he could have said so, and even then that’d bring its own problems.

See above for one of the dictionary meanings of "know".

Maybe it means "experienced only good"

See above. And what you meant I think was, “maybe Vlad intended his use of the word only in that specific sense” though there’s no telling either way.

See above for "experience" being one of the dictionary meanings of "know".

See above for why it doesn’t help.

What bad stuff did A&E see happening around them? I'm not sure but I don't think bad stuff happening around them is part of the Christian A&E story is it? The Quran story is A&E were living / experiencing the good life but knew the concept of "wrong" - as in approaching the tree was "wrong" - but were not seeing "bad stuff" happening around them.

If you didn’t experience it or see it see it how would you conceptualise it? What would “wrong” even mean to you and, even if you asked this “God”, “Hang on, what is this word “wrong” you keep using?” how would “He” have explained it without examples or similar? 

Maybe. Or maybe the A&E story including A&E leaving paradise and dwelling on earth and having children and starting the human race is to convey the idea that we are all part of one family originating from A&E who passed down the idea through the generations of worship of God.

Depends on how literally someone wants to take stories as to where those stories lead their thinking.

It does, but the metaphor breaks down very quickly if you follow its consequences. What that leaves you with is a sort of Aesop’s fable to be taken only as illustrative of a narrow conceptual meaning, only somehow apparently that conceptual meaning then jumps into the real world and makes us all guilty of Adam’s “original sin”.

Or something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

My explanation was that I don't think you need an emotional experience of "bad" to choose to obey a command - if you have accepted that your creator can expect you to obey, that is all you would be required to focus on - the obey part. It's a choice to obey based on the knowledge that disobeying is "bad" or "wrong" rather than a choice based on having experienced "bad" and wanting to avoid that experience.

But to have consequences obeying or disobeying “bad” and “wrong” would have to mean something, at least conceptually. 
 

My explanation was that A&E were told to not approach the tree and if they did they would be doing something wrong. Therefore presumably A&E understood the concept of right and wrong - and that right was submit to God's will, wrong is to go against God's will and they chose to follow their desire even though it meant disobeying God's instruction to not approach the tree and doing something wrong.

Have you come across the Frank Jackson’s Mary’s Room thought experiment?

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument 

Do you think that just explaining something when we have no other knowledge of it (experiential or otherwise) allows us to conceptualise it such that a fair obey/don’t obey choice could be made?

Sounds like hoping you've learnt to swim because you've read an instruction book to me.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No you’re not – you’re going by just one part of the definition. It also means, “be aware of”, “have a relationship with” etc. If Vlad had intended just one, narrow meaning of it (ie, “experienced”) he could have said so, and even then that’d bring its own problems.

BHS - I don't think there is much point in you and I discussing the meaning Vlad meant. Usually when people use words, they intend to use one of the various definitions or meanings of a word rather than all the definitions in the dictionary. And often, especially in relation to older pieces of writing or stories or phrases, the meaning they intended might have been common usage in a particular context but a different dictionary meaning is more common usage now for that context. You assumed a particular definition for the word "knew" in the context that Vlad was using it based on one of the definitions in the OED, I suggested an equally valid alternative assumption based on a different definition in the OED and based on the context and my understanding of the Quranic story. It's up to Vlad if he wants to clarify or not.

I think there are more interesting discussions to be had around the A&E story than the meaning of the word "knew", such as the requirement to obey and the choice between following your own desires or adhering to a moral code you may or may not have signed up for. So I think I will leave you and Vlad to your special relationship on here if either of you want to continue the discussion on the meaning of "knew". I just chipped in with my thoughts on the matter. 

If you didn’t experience it or see it see it how would you conceptualise it? What would “wrong” even mean to you and, even if you asked this “God”, “Hang on, what is this word “wrong” you keep using?” how would “He” have explained it without examples or similar?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking me or why - both of us are just guessing on how difficult or easy it is to understand the concept of wrong. It's not as if we can test this out by finding someone who has not experienced anything bad but who has the intellectual capability to understand language and concepts and who is motivated to obey or not obey.   

It does, but the metaphor breaks down very quickly if you follow its consequences. What that leaves you with is a sort of Aesop’s fable to be taken only as illustrative of a narrow conceptual meaning, only somehow apparently that conceptual meaning then jumps into the real world and makes us all guilty of Adam’s “original sin”.

Or something.

Can't help you there I am afraid - I'm not aware of an  'original sin' concept in Islam. Just each person responsible for their own good or bad deeds and intentions during their lifetime.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

But to have consequences obeying or disobeying “bad” and “wrong” would have to mean something, at least conceptually. 
 
Have you come across the Frank Jackson’s Mary’s Room thought experiment?

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument 

Do you think that just explaining something when we have no other knowledge of it (experiential or otherwise) allows us to conceptualise it such that a fair obey/don’t obey choice could be made?

Sounds like hoping you've learnt to swim because you've read an instruction book to me.

Haha - sounds like Theodor Kaluza.

Kaluza was a German mathematician and physicist known for the Kaluza–Klein theory involving field equations in five-dimensional space. His idea that fundamental forces can be unified by introducing additional dimensions re-emerged much later in string theory. Strange stories were told of his private life, for example, that he taught himself to swim in his thirties by reading a book and succeeded at his first attempt in water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Kaluza

I think your thought experiment is slightly different from being told to avoid a tree. You can see the tree, you know it's the tree that you have been told to avoid - all you are required to do is follow the instruction you have been given and avoid that particular tree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It baffles me that people are still discussing morality, with reference to Adam and Eve.  Is this for real?   

And yet you wash the feet, of those proposing moral irrealism(one would have thought people would have cottoned on to morality=unreal=end of argument) with balmy unction Wiggs.

[ekim]

Have you come across the Frank Jackson’s Mary’s Room thought experiment?

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?[4]

Mary had a sister, Martha, who had been locked away in a black and white room with a black and white monitor from birth.  Her sister Mary gave her scientific books to read of her experiments on wavelengths, optics, nervous systems etc and explained rainbows to her in scientific terms so that she learnt all about them.  Martha was released from her room and shown a rainbow.  Will she experience anything different or not?

[wigginhall]

And yet you wash the feet, of those proposing moral irrealism(one would have thought people would have cottoned on to morality=unreal=end of argument) with balmy unction Wiggs.

What does this gobbledygook have to do with Adam and Eve?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For clarification I use the word Know only good in the sense of experience moral good. Indeed how could walking with God result in any other experience than the receipt and giving of Good.
Similarly knowledge of evil is used by me in the same way.
humanity's rebellion results in the knowledge of Good and evil.

The tree is the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil.

Gabriella.

From my reading of your post I don't see what you see as the Quranic interpretation as being that different from the Christian interpretation.

Thank you for some sound work here. Much appreciated.

All

In terms of obeying or responding to a warning, of course we can do so without knowing the full context of the threat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does this gobbledygook have to do with Adam and Eve?

I am surprised you express surprise at theological discussion of the Adam and Eve story and yet buy moral relativism where the idea of morality collapses almost instantly.

Moral relativist. Son it's time to talk about morality
Son. Oh yeah?
Moral relativist Of course there is really no such thing as Good or bad
Son. F*ck off then you old c*nt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - I don't think there is much point in you and I discussing the meaning Vlad meant. Usually when people use words, they intend to use one of the various definitions or meanings of a word rather than all the definitions in the dictionary. And often, especially in relation to older pieces of writing or stories or phrases, the meaning they intended might have been common usage in a particular context but a different dictionary meaning is more common usage now for that context. You assumed a particular definition for the word "knew" in the context that Vlad was using it based on one of the definitions in the OED, I suggested an equally valid alternative assumption based on a different definition in the OED and based on the context and my understanding of the Quranic story. It's up to Vlad if he wants to clarify or not.

You do him too much credit (he’s notorious for just making up whatever meanings suit – see “scientism”, “atheism”, “philosophical naturalism” etc) but I agree. Working out what the troll had for breakfast is dull stuff.

I think there are more interesting discussions to be had around the A&E story than the meaning of the word "knew", such as the requirement to obey and the choice between following your own desires or adhering to a moral code you may or may not have signed up for. So I think I will leave you and Vlad to your special relationship on here if either of you want to continue the discussion on the meaning of "knew". I just chipped in with my thoughts on the matter.

Well yes – that is more interesting, though even as a parable it seems pretty rigged to me given that “God” had all the aces. I’d have thought a moral choice would have had to have consequences that that were meaningful to the choosers, so why would this god have denied them even conceptually to those people?   

I am not sure exactly what you are asking me or why - both of us are just guessing on how difficult or easy it is to understand the concept of wrong. It's not as if we can test this out by finding someone who has not experienced anything bad but who has the intellectual capability to understand language and concepts and who is motivated to obey or not obey.

Except that, on one reading at least, A&E were those people   

Can't help you there I am afraid - I'm not aware of an  'original sin' concept in Islam. Just each person responsible for their own good or bad deeds and intentions during their lifetime.

Though much of what constitutes “good” and “bad” is that which is codified in a book you think to be “holy”, which seems to me to be rather like trying to run an Estate Agent by following the rules of Monopoly.   

Do you think that just explaining something when we have no other knowledge of it (experiential or otherwise) allows us to conceptualise it such that a fair obey/don’t obey choice could be made?

Haha - sounds like Theodor Kaluza.

Kaluza was a German mathematician and physicist known for the Kaluza–Klein theory involving field equations in five-dimensional space. His idea that fundamental forces can be unified by introducing additional dimensions re-emerged much later in string theory. Strange stories were told of his private life, for example, that he taught himself to swim in his thirties by reading a book and succeeded at his first attempt in water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Kaluza

Thanks for the link. I hadn’t heard of him. So the story goes, Kim Jon-Il only tried golf once and hit holes-in-one all the way round too!

Mind you, given that when he was born the birds not only all sang his praises but did so in Korean, maybe that was no great shakes after all.

Remarkable eh?

I think your thought experiment is slightly different from being told to avoid a tree. You can see the tree, you know it's the tree that you have been told to avoid - all you are required to do is follow the instruction you have been given and avoid that particular tree.

OK, but what would the consequences be of this Bluebeard’s Castle type story have been for A&E, and why would a god have created intellectually curious people and then been surprised and disappointed when they exercised their curiosity?

I’m with Billy Connolly here:

“Never trust a man who, when left alone in a room with a tea cozy, doesn't try it on.”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

What does this gobbledygook have to do with Adam and Eve?

It’s a rare day indeed that Vlad’s gobbledygook has anything at all to do with the post he thinks he’s replying too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Argumentun ad Consequentialist,

I am surprised you express surprise at theological discussion of the Adam and Eve story and yet buy moral relativism where the idea of morality collapses almost instantly.

But only for the hard of understanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Still Irrationallst,

In terms of obeying or responding to a warning, of course we can do so without knowing the full context of the threat.

But not if you don't know the context of any of them.

"If you don't do as I say, that's bad."

"Oh right. Thanks.

Erm, what's this "bad" then exactly?"

[wigginhall]

I am surprised you express surprise at theological discussion of the Adam and Eve story and yet buy moral relativism where the idea of morality collapses almost instantly.

Moral relativist. Son it's time to talk about morality
Son. Oh yeah?
Moral relativist Of course there is really no such thing as Good or bad
Son. F*ck off then you old c*nt.

I'm curious if you learned to lie so much, because of Christian teachings?  Or is it home grown?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’m with Billy Connolly here:

“Never trust a man who, when left alone in a room with a tea cozy, doesn't try it on.”

Trivialising, Hillside.

I look forward to your rationalising of the 'evil of putting a tea cozy on your head''

I suppose it's Russell's teacozy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm curious if you learned to lie so much, because of Christian teachings?  Or is it home grown?

Please....point out where the lie is.

[wigginhall]

Please....point out where the lie is.

With your posts, it's the other way round.   Where is there not a lie?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

You do him too much credit (he’s notorious for just making up whatever meanings suit – see “scientism”, “atheism”, “philosophical naturalism” etc) but I agree. Working out what the troll had for breakfast is dull stuff.

I gather that's your experience but I have not had that experience with Vlad, and I don't usually read the long exchange of posts between you and Vlad as you seem to be trying to define terms but try to either pick up somewhere at the start or the end otherwise I would not have time to write a post myself, so....

Well yes – that is more interesting, though even as a parable it seems pretty rigged to me given that “God” had all the aces. I’d have thought a moral choice would have had to have consequences that that were meaningful to the choosers, so why would this god have denied them even conceptually to those people?

That's an interesting discussion as well. Do you need to feel the effects of disappointing someone in order to not want to disappoint them? Or are you trying to not disappoint them because you have personal standards of behaviour and an expectation has been communicated that you will keep your promise, word, agreement to worship or obey.

Also, coming back to your thought experiment, there was an interesting investigation undertaken of children who were blind from birth and then operated on to be able to see. The investigation seemed to indicate that even though they had not experienced sight before, their brains seemed to fall for the Ponzo illusion, which then caused scientists to re-think the explanation for the Ponzo illusion - that it is a result of the brain’s experience interpreting 2D images as 3D scenes, with the individual elements of images perceived to be at various depths and distances.

As the previously blind children's brains had not learned to interpret images, having not experienced them, a possible alternative explanation is that the brain is innately programmed to respond to certain inputs or  “we’re born with this machinery for seeing that in a way doesn’t require visual experience to emerge,”   

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/feature-giving-blind-people-sight-illuminates-brain-s-secrets

In the situation with the A&E story, it could be that their brains had the machinery to understand the concepts of right and wrong. But they made a choice to follow their desires rather than avoiding wrong.

Though much of what constitutes “good” and “bad” is that which is codified in a book you think to be “holy”, which seems to me to be rather like trying to run an Estate Agent by following the rules of Monopoly.   

Do you think that just explaining something when we have no other knowledge of it (experiential or otherwise) allows us to conceptualise it such that a fair obey/don’t obey choice could be made?

Is this still about A&E's situation or are you are talking about the choice for us to obey/ not obey a god when we have no knowledge/ experience of god.

OK, but what would the consequences be of this Bluebeard’s Castle type story have been for A&E, and why would a god have created intellectually curious people and then been surprised and disappointed when they exercised their curiosity?

That's the moral conflict I suppose between giving in to curiosity or obeying a rule. Some people might be curious about what it feels like to obey a rule without experiencing the consequences of disobedience. Because presumably obedience might have an interesting consequence.

I’m with Billy Connolly here:

“Never trust a man who, when left alone in a room with a tea cozy, doesn't try it on.”

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I gather that's your experience but I have not had that experience with Vlad, and I don't usually read the long exchange of posts between you and Vlad as you seem to be trying to define terms but try to either pick up somewhere at the start or the end otherwise I would not have time to write a post myself, so....

He’s notorious for it. It’s particularly poignant when he tells me to look it up in Wiki/RationalWiki and the definitions there falsify him (see tagline below).

That's an interesting discussion as well. Do you need to feel the effects of disappointing someone in order to not want to disappoint them? Or are you trying to not disappoint them because you have personal standards of behaviour and an expectation has been communicated that you will keep your promise, word, agreement to worship or obey.

Does it matter? If you have felt disappointment already yourself you won't have experienced “only good”; if you apply your personal standards you need to have a concept of that which fails to meet those standards. Either way, explaining “disappointment” (or any other emotional response) entirely in the abstract would be near impossible I’d have thought .

Also, coming back to your thought experiment, there was an interesting investigation undertaken of children who were blind from birth and then operated on to be able to see. The investigation seemed to indicate that even though they had not experienced sight before, their brains seemed to fall for the Ponzo illusion, which then caused scientists to re-think the explanation for the Ponzo illusion - that it is a result of the brain’s experience interpreting 2D images as 3D scenes, with the individual elements of images perceived to be at various depths and distances.

As the previously blind children's brains had not learned to interpret images, having not experienced them, a possible alternative explanation is that the brain is innately programmed to respond to certain inputs or  “we’re born with this machinery for seeing that in a way doesn’t require visual experience to emerge,”

Thanks – I’ll have a read.   

In the situation with the A&E story, it could be that their brains had the machinery to understand the concepts of right and wrong. But they made a choice to follow their desires rather than avoiding wrong.

That’s a big leap. Surely “right and wrong” requires all sorts of contextualising criteria doesn’t it to be coherent? The most I’d go to would be something like, “eg matricide feels inherently wrong because any people who did it would have exited the gene pool long ago for lack of maternal care”. If non-matricide is then deemed “moral”, so be it. 

Is this still about A&E's situation or are you are talking about the choice for us to obey/ not obey a god when we have no knowledge/ experience of god.

Actually no experience of the consequences whether we obey or not.

That's the moral conflict I suppose between giving in to curiosity or obeying a rule. Some people might be curious about what it feels like to obey a rule without experiencing the consequences of disobedience. Because presumably obedience might have an interesting consequence.

Indeed – you could argue that much of human exploration (of the oceans, of space etc) has precisely been about taking risks. Seems a bit mean therefore to condemn eternally someone for doing the same thing.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

He’s notorious for it. It’s particularly poignant when he tells me to look it up in Wiki/RationalWiki and the definitions there falsify him

That's just plain wrong. They don't........

I told someone to use Rationalwiki?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed – you could argue that much of human exploration (of the oceans, of space etc) has precisely been about taking risks. Seems a bit mean therefore to condemn eternally someone for doing the same thing.

That sounds like it's knocking at the door of ''evil is just taking a risk'' Evil as a courageous act, Hillside?
Or are you just trying to get us going? I don't know about anyone else but I'm going have to declare Hillsides latest as a bit of a turn off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Time for a commercial Break

''Were you missold The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

You may be eligible for compensation.

The agency responsible for theology...The Federation of New Atheists, has determined that when God said ''eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil'' that that could have come across as ''Go ahead chaps....fill your boots.''

Proposed evolved morality and yet youre a moral irrealist? Unwittingly Supported a moral realist scientist?

Polish it away with:

Turdoshine

[Walter]

Time for a commercial Break

''Were you missold The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

You may be eligible for compensation.

The agency responsible for theology...The Federation of New Atheists, has determined that when God said ''eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil'' that that could have come across as ''Go ahead chaps....fill your boots.''

Proposed evolved morality and yet youre a moral irrealist? Unwittingly Supported a moral realist scientist?

Polish it away with:

Turdoshine

alphabet soup!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Strawmanist,

That sounds like it's knocking at the door of ''evil is just taking a risk'' Evil as a courageous act, Hillside?
Or are you just trying to get us going? I don't know about anyone else but I'm going have to declare Hillsides latest as a bit of a turn off.

Oh dear. See Reply 22237.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

He’s notorious for it. It’s particularly poignant when he tells me to look it up in Wiki/RationalWiki and the definitions there falsify him (see tagline below).

It just comes across to me as 2 people in a discussion who have no interest in adopting the other's perspective, which is fair enough. Faith does not require demonstrable evidence - it's based on experiences, thoughts and emotions generated by an individual mind's processing of inputs, so I am not sure there is a way to justify my perception of reality to someone else if I adopt a faith position, whether it is on a religious issue or a moral issue of what I think is good or right, or whether it is about the existence of Leprechauns. This is not a major problem in society - we are not required to agree with all the different faith positions, beliefs and morals of people in a particular society but we are required to adhere to the laws in that society and are permitted to go through the proper mechanisms if we want to try to change those laws. Though having said that, the philosophy lecturer at Nottingham university did point out that sometimes people think it is necessary to break laws that they think are unjust (civil rights movements) - which then got onto a philosophical discussion about justice.

Does it matter? If you have felt disappointment already yourself you won't have experienced “only good”; if you apply your personal standards you need to have a concept of that which fails to meet those standards. Either way, explaining “disappointment” (or any other emotional response) entirely in the abstract would be near impossible I’d have thought .

Again I genuinely don't get why you are so fixated on the "only good" phrase. The "only good" part is not explained enough in the story to jump to any firm conclusions about what A&E could intellectualise, and as we have no way of testing their capabilities to intellectualise in order for us to reach any firm conclusions, I don't see the point of guessing about this part of the story.

I think some of the themes in the A&E story from a Muslim perspective is acknowledgement of a creator/ first cause; secondly, a purpose for human higher intellectual capabilities that can comprehend abstract ideas such as a creator and right and wrong; thirdly that God tried to motivate A&E to avoid the tree by giving them a negative incentive - that they would be committing a wrong; and fourthly that despite the clear instruction and negative incentive A&E were unable to stick to the moral code or instruction if it meant denying their personal desire of wanting to eat from the tree. In the Muslim version of the story A&E repent and are forgiven so there is no 'original sin' concept and the story just illustrates that humans can be influenced to desire things;  and how hard it is for humans to control their desires e.g. for something more, even when they already have a lot; and that there is opportunity to repent and be forgiven.

While I get that it is interesting for a little while to pick apart the logic in a story, I think when it gets to a point where that becomes endless repetition in certain discussions, there is nothing to be gained by it. I think the story adequately conveys the themes I mentioned and for the story to work A&E would need to know that obeying the command was right and disobeying the command was wrong. I'm not really interested in picking apart how A&E's minds processed the abstract concept of right and wrong in the story.

That’s a big leap. Surely “right and wrong” requires all sorts of contextualising criteria doesn’t it to be coherent? The most I’d go to would be something like, “eg matricide feels inherently wrong because any people who did it would have exited the gene pool long ago for lack of maternal care”. If non-matricide is then deemed “moral”, so be it.

Well, that's kind of what the story is trying to illustrate by having a God in it. If you are figuring right and wrong out for yourself, you probably need contextualising criteria, but with a god in the story, A&E were only required to obey God's command. In the Muslim version they start thinking about why they were issued with the command to stay away from the tree, which then opened them up to being influenced by their own desires rather than God's commands. Praying 5 times a day is an example of obedience overcoming personal desire.

Actually no experience of the consequences whether we obey or not.

Again that's down to whether someone adopts a faith position or not, as to the personal interpretation they put on their experiences.

Indeed – you could argue that much of human exploration (of the oceans, of space etc) has precisely been about taking risks. Seems a bit mean therefore to condemn eternally someone for doing the same thing.

Yeah - I don't do the eternal condemnation line - that's a Christian line and doesn't hold any appeal for me. I don't know what the "walk with God" line is about either. These are Christian phrases so will have to leave that to the Christians to offer their thoughts.

ETA: Also, I personally don't interpret the story as trying to put people off scientific curiosity, exploration, risk-taking or discoveries - it reads to me more like an illustration of the relationship between God and people  in certain religions and within that context, how not being content and how following your desires for something you have been told you can't have rather than obeying God/a religious moral code can lead to some negative consequences.