Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The concept of 'sin' is extremely complex because it is about errors and mistakes. How such errors tie in with actual consequences is important, but the concept of 'sin' is also often regarded with intention and ideas of duty. So, it is partly about tangible effects in life and about aspects of human motivation. This may be where it gets so complicated. I am left wondering about the conundrum of effects of one's actions, the intentions of action and the possible gulf between the two, in the understanding of 'sin' or errors.

Your insightful response about the nature of 'sin' as errors and mistakes, and the interplay between intentions and consequences, offers a profound avenue for philosophical exploration. Since I am from a background based on Buddhism, I will relate what you have said to Buddhist philosophy and interpret them.

The characterization of sin as errors and mistakes aligns with Buddhist philosophy, which often interprets 'sin' as unskillful actions leading to suffering. In Buddhism, actions (karma) are seen not in terms of sin and punishment, but rather in terms of cause and effect. This approach, as highlighted in the Dhammapada, a collection of sayings of the Buddha, suggests that actions driven by ignorance or harmful desires lead to negative outcomes, both for the individual and others. This perspective shifts the focus from sin as a moral transgression to understanding the implications of our actions in a broader context of interconnectedness.

The importance you place on both consequences and intentions resonates with Buddhist teachings, which emphasize the role of intention (cetanā) in determining the ethical quality of an action. According to Buddhism, an action is considered unskillful not only because of its harmful consequences but also because of the unwholesome intentions behind it. This perspective aligns with philosophical debates in ethics, where theories like consequentialism and deontology offer different approaches to evaluating the morality of actions.

The conundrum between the effects of actions and the intentions behind them is a crucial aspect of moral philosophy. The Buddha taught that while intentions set the direction of our actions, we must also be mindful of their impact. This dual consideration of intention and consequence in Buddhist ethics offers a nuanced approach to understanding sin and moral responsibility.

Drawing from these points, I'd like to ask: How do you see the balance between intentions and consequences in defining the moral quality of actions? And considering the Buddhist perspective, where do you think the focus should lie in assessing the ethical nature of actions - on the intentions, the consequences, or a combination of both?

[Sushan]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agsree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

Sushan,

Sins are the stuff of judgment and dependent entirely upon the belief in a supernatural being. This supernatural being of your choice, then bestowing upon us the free will of our actions. These are both absurd, simplistic, and convenient. Sin would be legitimate if it involves violating the laws of the morality of a given society/culture. These violators are then seen as criminals or monsters, who violate the definition of humanity. Only life can create meaning, so what we do to our fellows, mutual selves, we do to ourselves. Free will is nonsense when one considers the complexities involved. For healthy individuals context defines, for people born of ill health, responsibility lies with nature, and the understanding of the individuals peers. The day we give up the concept of being in violation of some supernatural power with a bad disposition, we will make an evolutionary step toward sanity.

Thank you for your insight, and I will address two points from what you have highlighted in your response.

The suggestion that free will is an oversimplified concept when considering the complexities of human behavior is a profound one. This viewpoint aligns with the determinism argument in philosophy, which posits that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding events and conditions. In this light, the notion of moral responsibility and sin becomes complex. If our actions are the result of various factors beyond our control, such as genetics, upbringing, and societal influences, how accountable are we for these actions? This deterministic perspective challenges the traditional notion of sin as a clear-cut choice between right and wrong. How should we then approach the concept of sin and moral responsibility in light of these complexities?

The idea of evolving beyond the concept of sin as a violation of a supernatural power’s laws presents an interesting evolutionary perspective on morality. This view suggests a shift towards a more secular and scientifically grounded understanding of moral behavior. As societies progress and embrace scientific explanations for human behavior, the traditional religious frameworks of sin might be reinterpreted or even become obsolete. This evolution could lead to moral standards being more closely tied to societal well-being and ethical reasoning rather than religious doctrines. In this context, how might our understanding of moral actions and sin evolve? Will this lead to a more rational and humane approach to moral judgments, or could it lead to moral ambiguity without the anchor of religious doctrines?

How do you envision the future of moral standards as we move towards a more secular and scientifically oriented understanding of human behavior?

[Sushan]

How do you think the institutionalization of religious teachings, like the concept of sin, has impacted their original intent and meaning?

The institutionalisation of religious teachings, including concepts like sin, has both positively and negatively impacted their original intent and meaning. One helpful effect was that institutionalisation often leads to the standardisation and codification of religious doctrines, which can help maintain consistency and clarity in teachings, preventing misinterpretations. However, this can also lead to oversimplification or rigid interpretations, potentially distorting the nuanced meanings of religious concepts like sin. In the same way, institutionalisation can create a sense of identity and unity among believers, which can be a source of strength and support. However, it has also led to dogmatism and intolerance toward differing interpretations or beliefs, hindering open dialogue and understanding.

Religious institutions can positively influence societal norms and values, promoting altruism, compassion, and justice. Conversely, institutionalisation can lead to the exploitation of religious teachings for political or social control, manipulating beliefs to serve specific agendas. Similarly, institutionalisation provides a framework for moral guidance, giving individuals a set of principles to follow, which can contribute to social order and ethical behaviour. However, overemphasis on specific rules or sins often leads to legalism, where the focus shifts from spiritual growth to adhering strictly to a set of rules, potentially missing the deeper spiritual intention.

Religious institutions can provide a centralised authority for guidance and support, fostering a sense of community and helping to maintain order. At the same time, institutionalisation can lead to power struggles and corruption, and we have witnessed how religious leaders sometimes misuse authority for personal gain, potentially distorting the original intent of religious teachings. Institutions are also better positioned to adapt religious teachings to different cultures, making them more accessible and relatable to diverse populations. However, cultural adaptation has also diluted original meanings when teachings are altered to fit societal norms, potentially losing some of their depth and original intent.

In summary, while institutions can play a crucial role in preserving and disseminating religious teachings, they also carry the risk of misinterpretation, power dynamics, and cultural distortion that may alter the original intent and meaning of those teachings.

Thank you for the insightful response. I will elaborate more on several points that you pointed out with my personal opinions.

The standardization and codification of religious teachings, while aiming for consistency and clarity, often come with the risk of oversimplification. As Mircea Eliade points out in "The Sacred and the Profane," when religious teachings become rigidly codified, they can lose the depth and flexibility needed to address the complex, evolving human experience. This process can strip away the nuanced meanings inherent in religious concepts like sin, reducing them to a set of black-and-white rules detached from their original spiritual context.

While religious institutions have historically played a role in shaping societal norms and values, promoting virtues like altruism and justice, there's also a darker side to this influence. Institutions have, at times, exploited religious teachings for political or social control. As Karen Armstrong discusses in "The Battle for God," religious doctrines have been manipulated to serve specific agendas, often at the expense of the core values they originally intended to uphold. This manipulation can lead to a distortion of religious values, turning them into tools of power rather than pathways to spiritual understanding.

In my view, while religious institutions have the potential to preserve and disseminate religious teachings, there's a concerning trend where these teachings are sometimes abused for personal or political gains. This exploitation not only devalues the original religious values but can also lead to a wider disillusionment with the institution itself.

The centralization of authority within religious institutions can foster a sense of community and order. However, this centralization also creates power dynamics that can lead to corruption, as seen in various historical and contemporary contexts. This is echoed in Max Weber's analysis of religious institutions in "The Sociology of Religion," where he notes how institutional structures can become self-serving, prioritizing the preservation of their authority over the dissemination of true religious teachings.

Given these considerations, how do you think religious institutions can navigate these challenges while staying true to the essence of their teachings, and avoid their followers from sinning? And in your opinion, what role should these institutions play in modern society, where there's an increasing call for authenticity and accountability in religious practices?

[popeye1945]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agsree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

Sushan,

Sins are the stuff of judgment and dependent entirely upon the belief in a supernatural being. This supernatural being of your choice, then bestowing upon us the free will of our actions. These are both absurd, simplistic, and convenient. Sin would be legitimate if it involves violating the laws of the morality of a given society/culture. These violators are then seen as criminals or monsters, who violate the definition of humanity. Only life can create meaning, so what we do to our fellows, mutual selves, we do to ourselves. Free will is nonsense when one considers the complexities involved. For healthy individuals context defines, for people born of ill health, responsibility lies with nature, and the understanding of the individuals peers. The day we give up the concept of being in violation of some supernatural power with a bad disposition, we will make an evolutionary step toward sanity.

Thank you for your insight, and I will address two points from what you have highlighted in your response.

The suggestion that free will is an oversimplified concept when considering the complexities of human behavior is a profound one. This viewpoint aligns with the determinism argument in philosophy, which posits that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding events and conditions. In this light, the notion of moral responsibility and sin becomes complex. If our actions are the result of various factors beyond our control, such as genetics, upbringing, and societal influences, how accountable are we for these actions? This deterministic perspective challenges the traditional notion of sin as a clear-cut choice between right and wrong. How should we then approach the concept of sin and moral responsibility in light of these complexities?

The idea of evolving beyond the concept of sin as a violation of a supernatural power’s laws presents an interesting evolutionary perspective on morality. This view suggests a shift towards a more secular and scientifically grounded understanding of moral behavior. As societies progress and embrace scientific explanations for human behavior, the traditional religious frameworks of sin might be reinterpreted or even become obsolete. This evolution could lead to moral standards being more closely tied to societal well-being and ethical reasoning rather than religious doctrines. In this context, how might our understanding of moral actions and sin evolve? Will this lead to a more rational and humane approach to moral judgments, or could it lead to moral ambiguity without the anchor of religious doctrines?

How do you envision the future of moral standards as we move towards a more secular and scientifically oriented understanding of human behavior?

Humanity must have the courage to acknowledge the overwhelming complexity of existence, and with that give up the absurd concept of free will. The religious traditions of the West are totally dependent upon this concept, for without it there is no sin, no control over the populace, that might be a healthy advance. The other major problem is what to do with those who violate the human standards of a given society, without free will our perspective is utterly changed. We know with the lack of free will; we must still protect society from those who are dangerous to the public, and society at large. We come into this world without an identity, with only the innate knowledge of our evolutionary development. We are that which experiences, we are life. It is only through experiencing the context we find ourselves in, that we engage in an endless process of identity formation only to culminate in death. So, assuming the health of the new life, it is biology defined by context that give us the happenstance occurrence of the processes of identity formation which determines the character of the individual. The complexity of one's biology alone should rule out the concept of free will, and add to that the mind-blowing complexity of the cosmos. Even our apparent reality is a complex relational biological readout, it is a music played by the cosmos on its instrument biology. This melody is only heard by the subject/instrument biology. This is the ultimate context defines, where is free will here, where free will is not ignorance, it is arrogance, or perhaps both.

[Good_Egg]

A lot to disagree with here.

On free will, it seems that most of us have the experience of being tempted to do something, that we think we shouldn't do, and then either resisting or giving in to that temptation.

So that while it's very true that reality is complex, the fact that we find it hard to conceive of what free will is and how it comes about doesn't invalidate that experience. Philosophy should explain our experience, not deny its reality because it doesn't fit our necessarily-simplified ideas. Denying the data so as to fit the model isn't the right way to go.

On religion, it's a misunderstanding (or as they might say nowadays a "straw man") to dismiss sin as the arbitrary commands of a non-existent supreme being. Thomas Aquinas and others saw "sin" as referring to objective morality baked into the structure of the universe, independent of revelation, and perceivable by unbelievers. "Sin" can be read as "crime against moral law" without postulating any particular knowledge of the lawgiver.

On sin, yes there is a need to think about intention and consequences. But the western tradition identifies a third factor - the inherent quality of the act. So that, for example, if Alfie sets out to murder Bruno for what he (Alfie) considers to be good reason, and things happen to fall out for the best, then there's still a wrong there. The chosen action may or may not be the least-wrong of all those that Alfie considered, but it's still a wrong, a sin, a breach of Bruno's rights.

[Yuvvi]

The perspective that "sins are merely man-made agreements" suggests that moral wrongs are constructs of human societies rather than universally defined. While societal norms and religious teachings often shape what's considered sinful, the concept of sin varies across cultures. For some, it reflects ethical guidelines or spiritual principles, while for others, it's a product of human interpretation. This idea underscores the subjective nature of morality, acknowledging that perceptions of sin are contingent upon cultural, religious, and individual beliefs.

[rahulverma]

All sins are not equal in the eyes of God because sins vary in severity. According to Proverbs 6:16-19, there are seven specific sins that are detestable to God.

[A Material Girl]

The perspective that "sins are merely man-made agreements" suggests that moral wrongs are constructs of human societies rather than universally defined. While societal norms and religious teachings often shape what's considered sinful, the concept of sin varies across cultures. For some, it reflects ethical guidelines or spiritual principles, while for others, it's a product of human interpretation. This idea underscores the subjective nature of morality, acknowledging that perceptions of sin are contingent upon cultural, religious, and individual beliefs.

According to my purely subjective standards of morality, I am as holy as the Holy Virgin Mary could ever be.

Praise the Lord!

AMEN.

[A Material Girl]

All sins are not equal in the eyes of God because sins vary in severity.

According to Proverbs 6:16-19, there are seven specific sins that are detestable to God.

I agree with you, my dear Rahul.

What do you think about the following two verses from the Holy Bible: viewtopic.php?p=452114#p452114

[Good_Egg]

This idea underscores the subjective nature of morality, acknowledging that perceptions of sin are contingent upon cultural, religious, and individual beliefs.

It's true that ideas of sin vary across individuals. (Only individuals have minds, only minds can perceive). And that culture is a factor causing some of this variation.

But describing the apprehension of moral rightness or wrongness as a perception implies that there is something there to be perceived. Which can be mis-perceived. You can sin unknowingly, if what you do is sinful but at the time you do not perceive it as such. Or you can sin deliberately, in full knowledge that what you do is wrong.

The alternative is that ideas of moral rightness or wrongness are chosen by each mind, as A Material Girl is clearly choosing to do. An agreement, in the sense of the thread title, is something chosen by the parties involved, is an act of the will.

Take any act that would be widely considered sinful. Such as Herod ordering the massacre of young children. To say that that is a sin is to say either that:
- you perceive it as wrong, or
- that you have - essentially arbitrarily - decided that it is wrong.

It's possible for you to reason that it is wrong, but the data that forms the basis for your reasoning (the Ought premise of your argument) is either a perception or an act of will - this just pushes the dilemma one step further back.

(Whether or not that act of Herod actually happened is beside the point; it's just an example).

[Good_Egg]

To say that that is a sin is to say either that:
- you perceive it as wrong, or
- that you have - essentially arbitrarily - decided that it is wrong.

It's possible for you to reason that it is wrong, but the data that forms the basis for your reasoning (the Ought premise of your argument) is either a perception or an act of will - this just pushes the dilemma one step further back.

If we unpack this idea of social agreement as the basis of the concept of sin, what do we see ?

We see individuals both receiving and transmitting ideas within their community.

People deciding to teach their children or preach to their neighbours that some act (maybe eating meat as an example?) is sinful. And doing so because they perceive this to be true, or reason from other perceptions that it is true.

People perceiving meat-eating to be sinful (or reasoning so from other perceptions). And perceive thus because this is what their parents and other people in their culture tell them.

Seems like we're deep into chickens and eggs here. What each person transmits on to others is based on what they have received.

In the case of "core morality" - the wrongness of deceit, theft, murder etc - the origin point of this process is untraceably far back in prehistory. But in the case of more modern ideas - perhaps the most recent being the idea that "misgendering" is a sin - it should be obvious that there has to be an originator.

Did that originator have a slightly-new perception of what is right and wrong ? Or did they play God by deciding ex nihilo ?

Society has no mind; it cannot originate anything. Communities have cultures, and a culture is a medium for the transmission of ideas.

[Joshua10]

I don't agree no, because I don't agree with +=- and -=+ philosophy.

Equal but Opposite forces exist in reality and we know that they don't cancel out so we know that +=- and -=+ philosophy does not apply to nature.

So sin cannot be man made.

[popeye1945]

I don't agree no, because I don't agree with +=- and -=+ philosophy.

Equal but Opposite forces exist in reality and we know that they don't cancel out so we know that +=- and -=+ philosophy does not apply to nature.

So sin cannot be man-made.

Joshua,

All meaning is relative to biology, in the case of sin, it is a man-made concept. It is a concept made by a ****-up psyche wishing for parental guidance. All organisms are reactionary creatures, and the reactions of those creatures are what humanity deems experience/meanings and reality. Only unreal/fantasy is the realm of the supernatural. To quote old Albert," It is time for humanity to grow up." Your logic above is faulty, all is nature as defined by a biological subject. In the absence of a conscious/biological subject, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

[FranciscoJoaquim]

I really don't know what to say about this, but one thing I do know is that even if it were an agreement, it already helps some people to be in line and think that if they do something wrong they will be punished.

[popeye1945]

I really don't know what to say about this, but one thing I do know is that even if it were an agreement, it already helps some people to be in line and think that if they do something wrong they will be punished.

So, we live by the dumbest common denominator? Not saying your wrong---- lol!!