The idea of the Fall remains the most significant insight into Human nature today. Discuss
(40 marks)
This question is asking to whether or not that the idea of the fall still remains significant in
today’s society. This issue and discussion on the fall being important or now has been going
on for many years as I will not just be mentioning Augustine but many other philosophers
and scientist who discuss this matter. This essay will explore the reasons on why I don’t
think that the story of the fall is the most significant insight to human nature due to more
modern ideas.
The fall is a religious doctrine made by Augustine that focuses on when humans hot got
separated from God making the world not be harmonious as it previously was. Augustine’s
starting point in the analysis of human nature is that in Genesis 1-3 in the passage we are
given accounts of the creation of man and woman, their time in the garden of Eden, their
relationship with each other, the natural world and God.
Before the fall Augustine speaks in positive terms about the human nature. Based on a
reading of the beginning of the Genesis creation narrative, he makes a number of significant
points. He speaks about the human will as something given by God. Humanity is also in a
state of paradise whereby friendship with God and with humans (Adam and Eve) can be
freely enjoyed. sexual love is seen as pure and without lust since the mind was in control of
the body. Significantly, for Augustine, in relation to the charge of pessimism, friendship and
love are not entirely destroyed in the fall. However, after the fall when Adam and Eve ate
the fruit from the tree of knowledge Augustine shows a very pessimistic view on human
nature as he believed that after the fall all humans are sinful due to the ats of Adam and
Eve. He believed that We are all predestined to sin which we don’t voluntarily sin as it is just
in our nature. He believed that we are all sinful as everyone is born through sex, so sin is
passed down from generation to generation. According to Augustine it is wrong since our
body now controls our mind meaning that he believes that we are born out of
concupiscence which is an act for lust. This is known as original sin.
He does make a strong point that most humans sin, not necessarily by God but we often
choose to do bad that has a bad impact. This is because of Akrasia which is a paradox when
people do things when they think what is in their best interests, but they still do something
completely different which turns out not to be for the best. This is also shown what St Paul
taught us about humans being weak willed. We do things even if they are wrong and we
know it. A significant weak point to this argument is that since he believed that everyone
was born with sin that raises the problem that a baby can’t be born from sin as they are
born innocent without being corrupt from ideas surrounding them as they are born as a
‘blank slate’ since they are born without opinion of rebellion or social matters. However, a
counter argument for this would be that our opinions are reliant upon a number of factors
such as our environment and general surroundings. This is relevant as various studies had
concluded that babies are able to absorb information and language whilst still in the womb.
Due to this Patricia Kuhl, who is the co-author and co-director of the institute for learning
and brain science, says that ‘the mother has first dibs on influencing a child’s brain.’
, Therefore, before the child is born the surroundings already start influencing a child’s
thought process showing that Augustine may have a point about being sinful. However,
Augustine doesn’t consider the fact that we can have good qualities within us as he suggests
that all humans give up to temptation and we are all selfish so instead of these virtues of
goodness that we are born into instead we are born with evil. One of the issues within his
thinking is that his view of the human nature is extremely pessimistic and too simplistic
showcasing his lack of knowledge on human nature as he simply believes that we are born
evil, and he doesn’t recognise the fact that the human nature is more complicated than that
since he has a point that we can do bad, but we can also do good. His beliefs contrast to
Aquinas’s view of human nature in his theory of natural law. Aquinas states that humans are
born from knowing right from wrong creating the sense of nature rather than nurture as
nurture would include on how we learn the ideals of right and wrong through the
environment. Due to having fixed precepts Aquinas had the belief that we have virtues that
are naturally built in us which are justice, temperance, prudence, and courage which
displays Aquinas’s beliefs on how humans aren’t all bad and can have good qualities within
us. A strength of this is that he has a good understanding and viewpoint of humanity as he
believes that humanity isn’t entirely bad or good but is just imperfect which also
demonstrates Plato’s views of humanity being imperfect which was shown by the use of the
forms. This point has some significance to it as he recognises that humanity isn’t perfect
which is true as we make mistakes regularly, but we can have some good to us unlike
Augustine’s beliefs since he believes that everyone is born with sin. Aquinas clearly shows a
better understanding of humans as he, unlike Augustine, contemplates on the idea that
humans can be good as in fact those virtues of goodness are naturally built into us instead
of evil. However, a weakness of this point is that this idea is still too simplistic as humans as
well as we don’t have a single ‘fixed’ human nature of the concept of moral decision
makings and instead these ideas are formed through the environment. Another issue is that
If God was omnibenevolent all-knowing and powerful, he would have known about this
betrayal. So, if he knew about their betrayal then he must have made humans imperfect
since they did give up to temptation and made the wrong decision so if he did make them
imperfect and punish everyone because of this God can’t be all loving. A counter argument
of this is that if God made them completely perfect and not give up to temptation then
there wouldn’t have been any free will which would have made the world imperfect due to
the lack of free will. Whilst Augustine had a reasonable argument on how we often sin and
give up to temptation with a lot of the time not even meaning to, but I don’t think it can
describe human nature today since his understanding of the human nature is too simplistic
since after the fall Augustine only recognises that humans are born with evil and sin instead
of the good qualities we possess. So, by looking at Aquinas’s opposing views on natural law
is a better outlook on human nature today than Augustine’s ideas on the fall since it is more
optimistic and a more faithful approach on how humans act today.
Before the fall, we had the ability to not to sin so if we hadn’t sinned, we would have been
immortal and live alongside God since this immortality would have been the reward from
the refusal to do sin. However, we did sin and chose to do evil, and we chose to give up to
temptation by eating the fruit off of the tree. Due to this original choice of temptation, it
