What follows is an altruistic attempt to contextualize "belief" when taking the Edenic framework into consideration. As such, this ordeal grants to the satisfaction of any/all possible "Abrahamic" worldviews that, for the sake of argumentation alone, there is something to be said of the Edenic ideal and how it might bring one to 'know'. Anticipating a begging of the question:

"...to 'know' what?"

the answer to this question will be addressed at the end once the framework is elaborated.

In the meantime, my own pursuit lead me to the problem:

'from whence human suffering?'

and it is this question that demands full-time use of any/all faculties available to me. Whereas I myself "believe" this question is central to the problem of, what I will designate, a solution to/for Real World Peace, I simultaneously am indiscriminately subject to my own findings (despite their not in any way helping my efforts):

"Belief" is not so much a virtue as consciously "knowing" what not to "believe" is.

and so my own "belief" that the problem 'from whence human suffering?' as being absolutely central to Real World Peace, is not to be taken as virtuous. Rather, I find that any real 'truth' that might exist must have a power and potency behind it to speak for itself. This leads me into problem of "belief" and how it has the power and potency to appear as if 'truth', but in reality it is falsity.

That truth and falsity can both simultaneously exist demands for a way to discern between them: what is true from what is false? This discernment drives at the roots of many things, not the least of which are the conscience (and its relation to so-called morality) and knowledge. Perhaps such considerations invokes imaginations of the distinction of light from darkness - an activity performed on the very first day of creation according to the creation account concerned.

It must be pointed out that, according to the account, creation comes by way of 'elohim': their characteristics denoted as having an image and likeness and being both male and female. This creative 'elohim' gives rise to the primordial Adam and Eve who allegedly "fall" from the Edenic state. This state whence fallen allegedly contains two trees: of living, and of knowledge of good and evil.

Concerning the former, according to 'elohim' eating from this tree results in one 'living forever'. Concerning the latter, Adam is warned not to eat the "fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - citing that such an activity 'surely' results in death. Further concerning the latter, Eve is told by the serpent 'surely' she will not die - citing that 'yhvh elohim' "knows" that they will become "like" gods 'knowing' good and evil.

The problem of discernment intrudes here: how is one to 'know'? Anticipating a familiar begging question:

"...to 'know' what?"

not only alludes back to the opening, but now demands an inquiry as to what 'knowledge' itself is, and what role it has in the discernment of what is true from what is untrue. The account designates 'knowledge' as relating to an apparent dichotomy of 'good and evil' as if all matters relating to 'knowledge' fundamentally resolve themselves into 'good and evil'. From this it can be inferred that as one approaches a state of "all-knowing" one necessarily approaches whatever god is (or is not, in the case of god being an absence of any/all false "beliefs").

Because the problem of good and evil begs consideration of a topic that many are uncomfortable with, the author selectively foregoes this in the interest of accessibility. In lieu of this, an alternative approach can be taken which aims to understand what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is.

Matthew 7:16-17 (KJV)

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Placing any/all purported authority as per Christianity and/or Jesus aside, the point being made here is that any tree can be known by the fruits it bears. As such, good trees would bring forth good fruits, and corrupt trees would bring forth evil fruits. In this light, rather than knowing the fruit for its tree, one can know the tree for its fruit, and as such only concern ones self with the fruit.

This now begs a new mode of inquiry: what are the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and/or how can they be identified as such? When considered in relation to the aforementioned problem of discernment (between truth and falsity)?

Let us consider the characteristics of the fruit given by the account:

Genesis 3:6 (KJV)
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (i), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (ii), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (iii), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

(i) the woman saw that the tree was good for food
(ii) it was pleasant to the eyes
(iii) to be desired to make one wise

and ask: what behavior(s), if any, satisfies these conditions such that one may understand what is actually meant by "fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

I will now recall:

"Belief" is not so much a virtue as consciously "knowing" what not to "believe" is.

and asking the following of "belief": can "beliefs" appear good (ie. true), but in reality be bad (ie. untrue?) Can "beliefs" sound pleasant (ie. good) but in reality be unpleasant (ie. evil). Can "beliefs" appeal to a desire for wisdom, but in reality be unwise? What happens if/when a being "believes" to know good from evil, and/or evil from good, when in reality they have them completely confused with one another?

And it is from this, the problem of "belief" emerges as a candidate for being like a fruit: beliefs can appear good, pleasant and appealing, but in reality be evil, unpleasant and unwise to partake in. Such is the nature of "belief" and such is the agency of "belief" to have the power and potency to confuse good with evil, and/or evil with good. What does this say of the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Take the following example:

A: "We (A) are on the side of good, and they (B) are on the side of evil!"
B: "No, WE (B) are on the side of good, and THEY (A) are on the side of evil!"

What happens when two sides simultaneously "believe" to be on the side of good fighting against evil? They will wage war against one another - and it is certain that death is the result, rendering the sentiment:

"There are no real winners in war,"

a perfectly sound one - in the context of the Edenic model, war is a/the product of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such that 'surely' manifests death. It is for this reason the author wishes to see this present generation of humanity put a permanent end to war, and would not work toward doing so if it was known to be impossible. The obstacle to this is the same "original sin" that the author finds Adam to have succumbed to: blame (in particular, another for his own action). Unfortunately, the author sees no solution to the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' that does not involve the understanding of the problem itself. It is from this that understanding (anything) is the beginning of wisdom, and certainly superior to suffering (anything).

Finally, to apply this back to the two trees, if it can be said that the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil are "beliefs" which are, in reality, the opposite of what they appear to be as they are discovered to be spoiled, can it be said that the fruits of the tree of living are "knowns" which are, in reality, ever-yielding in that they prove themselves over and over and over again? Once again, the author leaves it in the hands of the fellow philosopher as needed.

What does any of this say about 'knowledge' and its use in the discernment of what is true from what is untrue?

"...to 'know' what?"

To know who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" (ie. eat a particular fruit) on the basis of it being "known" as a "fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ie. "us vs. them") which surely manifests death. The 'state' which describes one who eats the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is "satanic" wherein the expression(s) of their choices reflect their own being bound (to "believe" something that is not true) in an ongoing state, and as such are the ones who suffer (as a result of ignorance). It is the wish of the author to see Judaism, Christianity and Islam reconcile their differences insofar as it would relate to putting an end to war on the planet and Real World Peace. That there is (allegedly) one monotheistic god, yet three distinct monotheistic institutions which war against one another, begs some questions.

As such, "belief" is not a solution, it is a problem, and knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" is a solution to ever being "bound to believe" something that is not true. Therefor, 'knowledge' can be understood as like an internal defense mechanism acting against absorbing/adopting "belief"-based worldviews that do not reflect the reality. Rather than being seen as "something", it should be seen as "absence of false somethings" such that a being is not hindered by false "beliefs" which create a potential for polarization (ie. "us vs. them" worldviews). In this view of 'knowledge', the only thing that need be 'known' is how to use the conscience to discern between what is true and what is untrue. This begs for philosophy to become a part of the discussion, lest it go the way of censoring such discussions.

If not for the "belief"-based divisive worldviews, human suffering would not exist in anywhere near the capacity that it presently does and because philosophy does not have the psychological/emotional baggage (in relation to personal attachments to books/idols) that a religious body might have. It is therefor best equipped to deal with such a problem of the conscience before it, too, succumbs to the censorship of ideas - a symptom of fascism (ie. use of force to silence unpopular/unwelcome ideas) so certainly present in "belief"-based religious institutions as manifest via proxy in global geopolitics. Should philosophy wish to be a part of the solution, it needs to understand that censorship of ideas is precisely what satisfies the conditions necessary for human suffering to continue, and precisely what is found as a modus operandi of those who wish for their own state-sanctioned "belief"-based worldviews to prevail.

To close with real-world implications, the author recognizes that fascism is still a global concern, and has not been defeated because its true source is not widely discussed (due to a number of reasons). The nature of a fascist 'state' is to suppress, censor, slander and accuse anyone who criticizes the state, as being a myriad of things: racist, bigot, supremacist etc. But there are "fruits" which, when known, grant one the ability to discern who the real racists, bigots and supremacists are:

The accuser is the accused,

almost always holds true when a body/state is acting from a place of enmity (ie. against another due to latent hatred). It is like a mark (ie. indicator which prompts one to ask: is the accuser actually accusing others of their own crimes?) that is equivalent to 'psychological projection': wherein a being accuses another of what they are themselves guilty of. This is especially useful in geopolitical analyses wherein accusations are made against a political adversary which reflect the characteristics of the accuser themselves rather than the accused. The agency required for "believers" to "believe" that the accused, rather than the accuser, is guilty of something, is precisely that... "belief". It is for this reason the author withholds directly identifying the source of fascism on the planet, and would rather allow the truth to speak for itself: who are they who so religiously rely on "belief" while spilling blood over "belief" in books and model men, accusing all others as being the barrier to "peace"? The answer is not far from here, and there is a great irony to be discovered at the heart of it all: absolute inversion of good and evil, with "belief" being the agency required to confuse them.