It's no secret that atheists - at least the most vocal ones - view themselves as the only people on Earth capable of intelligent thought. Faith, particularly Theism, is frequently viewed as a hallmark of ignorance, not only due to deficiency of intellect, but maintained through sheer force of will. Atheists are supposedly the champions of reason, whereas Theists are determined to keep the world trapped in the dark ages.
It is ironic that people who hold such a perspective often fail to think critically about the positions they criticise. One would think a rational being would thoughtfully consider both the main points, and even the merits, of a worldview with which they disagree. "This is what you teach, this is why I disagree." For bonus points: "I can see why you believe what you do."
Instead of this wise approach, atheists typically cling to a few key words and string them together into something no one actually believes, which they then proceed to give a response to. In logic, this is a fallacy known as the "straw man". One such straw man pertains to The Fall, one of Scripture's more well-known events.
The Fall is primarily described in Genesis 3. Having placed Adam and Eve, the first humans, in a garden called Eden, God commanded them that they could eat from any tree in the garden except for one. He warned them that if they broke this command, they would die, a threat He carried out when they ultimately did break the command.
The forbidden tree has a particular name that atheists like to highlight. It is called the "Tree of Knowledge". With a name like that, it seems the implication is clear. Don't seek knowledge, just blindly believe everything God tells you. This, atheists claim, is proof that the Christian faith actively discourages the pursuit of knowledge.
The irony here is that while this account is criticised for supposedly promoting willful ignorance, it is willfully ignorant of the account itself. See, the Bible does not call the tree "the tree of knowledge", as if knowledge is the problem. Rather, the tree is mentioned twice by name in Scripture, both times in Genesis 2. It is specifically called "...the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Genesis 2:9, 17).
From its Biblical title, it is clear that the kind of knowledge the tree gives is not academic, like STEM disciplines. Rather, the knowledge in question is moral knowledge. Particularly, experiential knowledge.
This is seen in the account of the fall. The forbidden tree did not bestow them with degrees from Harvard University. The only thing of which they became aware was their own shame. Where once they fearlessly walked alongside God wearing nothing but what He had graced them with, they now fled from His very footsteps, covering themselves with fig leaves.
Thus we see that the knowledge the tree brought was not the kind of knowledge which is good to seek. To be clear, the Bible explicitly tells us it is good to seek it. Proverbs 18:15, for example, tells us "The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge." Paul goes even further in 1 Corinthians 14:20, telling us "Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature."
See how nicely that ties in? Be mature in understanding, but babes in malice. Such was the state of Adam and Eve before they ate of the tree. Before the tree, they were quite sufficiently equipped for a long and fruitful life. Quite literally, they were immortal, and permitted to eat from any other tree. They even knew the law. Only when they ate the fruit did they gain the knowledge that comes from practical experience.
What we're looking at in the Fall, therefore, is the equivalent of knowing a stove is hot, and finding out by placing our hands firmly against it. Now, we don't just know that it is hot, we know exactly what "hot" is. We didn't need to know. We shouldn't have wanted to know. But the scars on our hands serve as a reminder, we know now.
But because of the depravity inherent in all in Adam's line, atheists push back even here. Beyond all imagination, even once their initial misunderstanding has been corrected, they adopt a new tactic, attempting to flip the blame back to God Himself!
An example of this can be seen in this meme. In satirical fashion, the meme shows six slides, depicting God as if He was setting a trap. He commands them not to eat the fruit, highlights how appealing it is, places a snake, disappears, but flippantly returns to flick one of the forbidden fruits towards the couple.
The irony of this, however, is that there is only one slide in this comic strip that is actually important: The first. Why? For two reasons. First, the rest of the comic just isn't theologically accurate. Arguably, neither is the first slide, but rather than nitpick it, we'll just say it's a dramatic depiction of Genesis 2:16-17, where God commands Adam (and not the as yet uncreated Eve) not to eat from the tree, warning him that he will die if he does.
But the rest of the comic frames God as this almighty tempter, increasing the temptation to violate His (very clear) command several times. But the reality is, "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (James 1:13-14).
Neither Adam, nor Eve, nor even the devil (the famous "talking snake") can claim God Himself was tempting them. Rather, temptation comes from within. We want something we shouldn't want, and we begin to seek it.
Which brings us to the second problem: We don't have to. The thing about free will is that we do not have to cave to temptation. If we have a desire we should not have, we do not have to seek its fulfilment. If we have a desire that is acceptable to have, we do not have to fulfil it the wrong way. You want to sleep with your neighbor's wife? Too bad, she's spoken for. You want money? Don't steal it, work for it. Even as sinful creatures, we understand that it really is that simple.
So why would anything else matter? Simply because of the depravity of man's heart. We know we should take responsibility for our own sin, but we don't want to take responsibility for our own sin. Thus, we see that even when Adam and Eve get caught eating the forbidden fruit, they immediately begin shifting the blame. God asks Adam if he's eaten the fruit, and he says "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." (Genesis 3:12).
It's interesting that this excuse never seems to feature in atheistic arguments. They always like to ask "why was the tree there?" or "why was the devil there?", but they never ask about Eve. But Adam blamed Eve, and even seems to imply God is to blame for giving her to him. But he seems to be alone in this. No one asks why God gave Eve to Adam, knowing it would actually be her who handed him the forbidden fruit.
This is probably because that would be the least defensible attempt to blame God. We can ask why God created the tree, or the devil, but to ask why God gave Adam a wife would be stupid. Marriage is a good thing, and we know it. But this is actually the case with all evil things.
Ultimately, evil is parasitic. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. Adultery cannot exist without marriage. Theft cannot exist without wealth. Murder cannot exist without life. Every evil thing you can possibly think of is only possible because there is something good for it to destroy. The devil himself was once an angel.
But then what of the tree? What possible good could that tree have served? Well, first we need to get around this idea that there was anything special about the tree. It wasn't enchanted. It was much like all of the other trees in the garden, from which Adam and Eve were permitted to eat. Ultimately, this tree did not have to be a tree. It could have been a river from which they were forbidden to drink, a bench upon which they could not sit, anything really. This is because the principle behind the tree was obedience to God, and that is the ultimate good (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).
Now, how can one obey God if He gives no commands? Obedience is impossible without a command, but with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil firmly planted in the garden, and with God's command "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17), obedience was possible.
Permanently.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil could have stood tall and proud forever. Not once did Adam and Eve have to eat from it. They had everything they needed for an infinite and happy life. They could have still been in that garden right now, had they obeyed, and that would have been a very good thing. Better even than if the tree of knowledge just never existed.
But obviously, that didn't happen. They disobeyed, they suffered the consequences, we disobey, we suffer the consequences. But the irony here is that this allows for yet another great good. Mercy is good. Grace is good. And so now, because God is good, and we are evil, we can become the recipients of an even greater good. We get to experience the love of the God who literally died for us.
Of course, even this sparks many more ignorant responses from the same atheists who criticise the tree. For example, the "cosmic Jewish zombie" quote. This article is only aimed at addressing criticisms of the tree, so I won't get into that here. Suffice to say for now, their criticisms of the Gospel are no better than their criticisms of the tree. Ultimately, just as Adam and Eve had the choice, so do you. You may continue in your rebellion, eventually returning to the dust from which we were created, at which point you will face judgment. But another option has been presented to you. You can repent of your sin, and believe in the risen Lord, Jesus Christ, who took the penalty for it on your behalf. The result of this will effectively be Eden 2.0. Everlasting life in a Kingdom without sin, and therefore without death.