To follow up from yesterday, I'll remark at the outset that most people in the West, if not most of the rest of the world, have heard, in some form, the story of Adam and Eve.  And if anyone has not heard the story, they likely have heard, in other situations, numerous variations on its theme:  an explanation for how and why humanity struggles with guilt and moral ambiguity.
     Even if we do not believe that Adam and Eve are historical figures or that their story ever happened, we can still look at it as a metaphor for how we are to grapple with our moral angst.  By this, I mean that, considering our discussion yesterday, we are really left with two choices.  One, we assume the fact of God as a starting point for morality; or two, we assume that morality has no starting point other than its (unexplainable) existence.
     Here is where Adam and Eve come in.  In the story of Adam and Eve, we see a presence of opportunities to do, per divine dictum, either good or bad.  From day one, a moral structure, a structure encompassing both sides of moral choice, present.  A standard, a full standard and accounting of morality and moral choice exists.
     But to assume that morality is not established by divine dictum and presence leaves us wondering how we can possibly justify its existence.  How can we grasp moral choice if no reason for morality exists?  We say that Adam and Eve sinned precisely because morality existed.  Divine presence ensured its worth, validity, and reality.  Jettison divine presence if we will, yet doing so puts us in the uncomfortable position of insisting on the existence of something (morality) that we cannot explain with material explanations alone.  We are justifying something we cannot legitimately affirm.
     Sure, Adam and Eve may make a funny couple, but dust that is inherently moral is funnier (and odder) still.