# The Abomination that is Original Sin **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211 "2003-03-26T03:57:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![McDuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@McDuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDuff)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/101 "2003-04-03T11:33:02Z")
My guess would be that it has evolved to suit the particular politics of the day, and that nobody, perticularly, made it up. > [@](#): > > Why was it forbidden? CS Lewis had an interesting idea. He said that the fruit was forbidden for no other reason than to see if Adam and Eve would obey Him, simply becayse He was God. All the other commands He gave them (like, “Go forth and multi… oh, you’ve already discovered that then”) had some other basis other than “God Said So” for obeying them. There was just one command that God gave that had to be obeyed for no reason other than it had to be obeyed. ---
**Author:** ![diffdam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@diffdam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diffdam)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/102 "2003-04-03T12:41:37Z")
I always thought that “original sin” was a simple reference to sex, a “sin” committed in order that we can be born. All this about serpents and apples is allegorical. Christ was not born this way & so of course is pure.The church says we need them to teach us how to overcome our base proclivities. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/103 "2003-04-03T15:47:22Z")
The doctrine of original sin was first formulated by Augustine who based it largely on Paul’s commentaries in Romans, chapter 3. Paul understood the fall of Adam as having brought death into the world, and the crucifixion as restoring the possibility of eternal life. Augustine claimed that “all men were present in Adam” (whatever that means) and that Adam’s disobedience had not only brought about death and tainted all men with sin, but also cost us our “image of god” status and even free will. Augustine’s doctrine was gradually accepted by the Church, although in a modified form. (the church rejected both the image and the free will part, but retained the idea the Adam had brought sin into the world). Martin Luther really fixated on the free will thing and sort of revived it. It had a lot do do with his salvation-by-grace-alone theory as well as his rejection of the idea that man can be saved by his own deeds or efforts. From there it made its way into various strains of protestantism with various interpretations. FWIW, here is the Catholic statement on OS from the [Catechism:](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm) > [@](#): > > **"Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history."10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error** ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/104 "2003-04-03T17:00:15Z")
When you say “the Church”, you are speaking an utter falsehood! Augustine’s doctrine was NEVER made part of the Orthodox Church. Stop ignorantly and stupidly presuming that Western theology is the only form of Christianity that exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/105 "2003-04-03T18:38:34Z")
**Dogface** , You’re right, I should have specified the RCC. I said 'The Church" because there had not been a formal split yet, but you are correct that Augustine’s theory was particular to the Latin churches and was never accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m sorry for any offense. You are also correct that people often talk about Church history as though the Eastern Orthodox never existed. On a board which is supposed to fight ignorance I should have raised your points myself. I apologize for the oversight. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/106 "2003-04-04T00:48:06Z")
It is I who should apologize for the tone I took. I could have made the point far better. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/107 "2003-04-04T04:51:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by McDuff \* > … Humour an old man’s interest. I like to know a bit about the people I talk to. Are you an objectivist? While find a lot to agree with in the writings of Ayn Rand, I have not thoroughly studied her treatise on Objectivism enough to claim that I am one. I _do_ find her to be one of the only rational philosophers I’ve read, although my perusal of philosophy is somewhat limited. > [@](#): > > This is why I ask. It is my experience that people who rail against “altrusim” [sic] use a definition of the word that no other people use. I was once very confused about the apparent contradiction between a belief that altruism was evil, and a belief that firefighters rushing into the World Trade Centre to try and save people’s lives _weren’t_ either evil or hopelessly misguided. However, it was explained to me that the firefighters weren’t acting because of altruism, but because of something else (I forget exactly what). I would say that the firefighters were acting as highly trained and quite admirable professionals. Altruism’s core definition of duty to other people is a wholly unreasonable concept. People’s own enlightened self interest is one of the only valid motivations anyone should ever appeal to. > [@](#): > > You rage against a “mandatory” sense of “duty” towards others, yet are intensely proud of your own desires do “do good”, and highly critical of others apparent lack of desire to do likewise. I would suggest that our views on the actions and attitudes we would like people to exhibit are very close to each other, in this regard, but I call it “altruism” and you call it something else. Fine. Go right ahead. We both live in free countries. > [@](#): > > Yes. Yes I absolutely would advocate showing what the perceived benefits of Hitler’s and Stalin’s regimes were. Yes, I would advocate showing that the issue was not one sided. Yes, I would advocate displaying the complexities, the biases, the willful blindness, the effects of fragile hopes on a desperate people. To say that there were no redeeming qualities to Hitler is to paint a one dimensional picture of pure evil, and that leads to a great danger that we look for evil to rail against, when we should instead be looking out for persuasive speakers emotionally appealing to fears and ignorance, who by this method will cause evil deeds to insinuate themselves into society without us even being vastly aware of it. Call pandering to people’s weaknesses whatever you like. It is a form of manipulative persuasion that will never adequately replace true leadership. I do not seek to reduce Hitler into a singular and easily digested form. I _do_ seek to make sure that Hitler’s evil never be allowed the remotest shred of validity. > [@](#): > > The first lesson we should take from Hitler and Stalin is not that we should always fight against evil men, but that we should not do evil things and become evil ourselves. If we do this, the second lesson, that of opposing evil men, ceases to be relevant. I agree. Again, I only seek to ensure that their acts are portrayed as the intolerable evil that they were and nothing less. > [@](#): > > I agree with you. It was shameful, and the German people today still bear, I would say unnecessarily, part of that national shame. What I would have you realise is that there is rarely a situation where all things are equal and all decisions are as cut and dried as they appear with 20:20 hindsight. The status quo is a powerful force. “Everyone else is doing it” is a very persuasive argument. After all, twenty-million Americans can’t _all_ be wrong about cheeseburgers. No, but this does not change the simple fact that an obese person routinely scoffing down Wimpy bars is still a fool. I do dispute as to whether the German people still need to bear any shame for the sins of their fathers. Nazism is still alive and kicking in Germany. Until it is eradicated from their culture they need to have an enduring awareness of its ramifications. While they all may not be to blame for its continuing existence, there is some sort of aspect to German culture that nurtures such malignancy. This _is_ an utterly valid reason for their collective memory of the Holocaust to remain rather vivid. > [@](#): > > There are? Please, tell me where to find such bastions of enlightenment, for I have yet to come across a single one of these precious, diamond-like beings. I have had the pleasure of meeting several people who maintained a steadfast devotion to rationality. It’s a pity you have yet to experience such an encounter. Good people _do_ exist in this world and I shall always do my best to encourage them. > [@](#): > > Yes, I apologise, Iwas rather broad in my definitions of “rationality.” I still, however, defend the inevitable nature of irrationality as part of human nature. People who go out to a partys [sic] knowing that the inevitable hang-over will occur the next morning are acting “irrationally”, as are those people, such as myself, who sit in a chair and allow another human being to permanently mark their skin with ink-filled needles. There is no rational justification for my going into work tonight with a hand that has been sliced open following a recent accident with a broken mirror. As a freelancer in a physical job, I could quite easily phone in and say that my injury prevents me from working - rationally, given the nature of my work, it would. But I have a strange kind of pride which makes me prove that the normal rules that apply to sensible people don’t apply to me. This is why I do what I do in the first place (and some people would say that anyone choosing to work as I do is making an irrational decision in the first place. On the other hand, it’s the best job in the world, so what do they know, eh? 🙂 ) People who incur hangovers are not being irrational. They are merely paying the piper after the fact. There is nothing illogical about this so long as they do not cause grief to others in the process. Your own sense of professionalism (misplaced or not) is a matter for you alone to decide. So long as you do not endanger anyone by attempting to function at work while physically impaired, it is entirely up to you. If you are managing to permanently disable yourself by working while wounded, then that is either stupid or illogical. I’ll let you decide as to which. > [@](#): > > There is irrationality in _carpe diem_. There is irrationality in taking the long shot, the big risk, the million to one chance. There is irrationality in heroism. Yet, of such things is humanity made. Siezing the day, taking calculated risks and voluntarily attempting to achieve or perform great deeds is in no way irrational. I am rather astonished that you would think so. > [@](#): > > I don’t buy attempts to conflate business with life. Life is not a science, an art, or a business. These things emerge from the act of living, they are not guides for it. Life is life. Living better through the utilization of science, finding penultimate expression through artistic endeavor and scaling one’s thoughts or actions with transactional analysis can provide tremendous benefits and guidance to one who is willing to do so. There are many people who go their entire lives without making the attempt. I happen to view such a barren existence as untenable. Maybe you do not. That is up to you. > [@](#): > > Yet, maybe they feel that the benefits outweigh the risks? Maybe they have made a value judgment [sic] and feel that it is worth running the risk of premature death because cheeseburgers are just so damned tasty. Maybe they think that life without cheeseburgers isn’t worth living? > > It’s “irrational”, yet it has all the hallmarks of rationality. That’s what makes human beings humans, rather than automatons. A person whose life values pivot utterly upon the unpunctuated consumption of Wimpy bars is a pretty meager specimen of humanity. I’m sure such people probably exist, I just do not intend to lower my sights to such a degree. I also view a willingness to do so as illogical and irrational. Such weak-willed lunacy is bereft of any “hallmarks of rationality.” > [@](#): > > Oh, come now Tarquin! I must call shenanigans on such insults! To state that I said actions have no reflection on character is to misread what I said. If a “rational” person can make irrational decisions, even occasionally, or an “irrational” person can make rational decisions, even occasionally, then that indicates that there is no such thing as an irrational or rational person, merely people who do rational or irrational things. If a person makes decisions which are 50% rational and 50% irrational, then what are they? Surely you are not claiming that nobody ever makes irrational decisions? Again, if you know of such glass vulcans [sic], I would love to meet them, or possibly observe them for a sociology PhD. And you, as well, are misinterpreting mine. I speak of people who are _dedicated_ to rooting out irrationality from their lives. While none of us are perfect, that does not lessen the importance of desiring perfection and holding it as a worthy goal. You stated; > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by McDuff_ > Again, people aren’t rational or irrational, they make decisions, which can be rational or irrational decisions, but that’s not implying anything about the person themselves. This is utter tripe and there is no other way of interpreting it except as a voiding of personal responsibility. You may have _meant_ to say something else with those words, but that did not happen. > [@](#): > > Also, to characterise my statements as “uncontaminated by logical thought” is pretentious bobbins, and flies in the face of your “welcoming” me into this thread. It flies in the face of nothing. Your other contributions at these boards seemed fairly well thought out and I had yet to encounter something as mindless as the above quote in your other work. Upon seeing such drivel I was obliged to rethink my position. I welcome any attempt on your part to restore my confidence, just don’t think I shall take such tomfoolery laying down. > [@](#): > > I am afraid I must be misreading this. You seem to be saying that the goals and aims of “society” are always in tack with the goals and aims of a rational individual. Given the number of “rational” men (or men who I would hope you view as rational, or else all appears to be lost) who oppose vociferously the society in which they live, surely such a belief is entirely inconsistent with reality? I think you are confusing given cultural norms or mores with what is frequently a higher standard of the Social Contract. Many societies are at complete loggerheads with human rights, one word; Taleban. This in no way alters the fact that the social contract is never at odds with the rights of any rational individual. The conditions of the preceding statement are intentionally quite precise. > [@](#): > > You’re shifting around like quicksand here, Zenster, and I’m finding it very hard to avoid being bogged down in your arguments. > > On the one hand, you argue that since the universe _holds_ life, and life is good, then the existence of the universe is a good thing. This I cannot really argue with, as it is the equivalent of saying that since bottles hold wine, and wine is good, that the existence of bottles, or other containers for liquid, is a good thing. > > On the other hand, you use the word “permits”, which I feel simply must be the wrong word, as it implies a conscious decision on the part of the universe. The universe no more “permits” life than the ground “permits” me to walk upon it. More to the point, the ground does not care one jot whether I walk upon it or not. It will exist there quite unaware of me and my grand or not-so-grand designs on life, be I walking upon it or flying to the moon in a rocket. > > To argue that the universe “permits” life, rather than life just being something that happens in a universe blindly following the rules of its physical laws, seems to argue for an overarching intelligence making decisions on the universe’s behalf; a kind of pantheistic curtain-twitching. I have no problem with this kind of theology, but your objections to ID leave me thoroughly confused, although this may be because of my ignorance rather than your argument. I think you are confused about the definition of the word “permits.” Water, for instance, permits the possibility of life. Not by concious volition of any sentient little hydrous molecules but by its life-giving chemical properties. So it is with the universe. I hardly see where you could construe any belief upon my part in some sort of mysterious “universal consciousness.” The universe is a phenomenal mechanism that has set the stage for life’s emergence upon it. That is all. I hope that firms up your “quicksand” a bit. > [@](#): > > Here I see I have left you by the wayside. I am not attempting to have anything both ways. The universe is indifferent. It cares not one jot for us. We are something that happens within the universe. You previously stated that > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by McDuff_ > Life dictates that we make irrational decisions every day, and we often do. Implicit in your statement is a notion that the universe is malevolent. It _forces_ us to be irrational. Now you say, “The universe is indifferent.” You are indeed trying to have things both ways. Additionally, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in doing so. You cannot use self-contradicting premises in order to establish a logical point. You are leaving logic and rationality by the wayside in the attempt to do so. > [@](#): > > But we humans, as you so rightly point out, live according to our own viewpoint, which finds us to be, if not the best thing since sliced bread in all cases, at least more desirable a state of affairs to continue than not. Our desire to stay alive, to create fair societies, to write and read fine works of literature, is one giant “fuck you” to an indifferent universe. We don’t care that the universe doesn’t care about us, because WE care about us, and that’s all that matters to us. Agreed. Although I take issue at your sort of gesturing towards what I consider to be an incredibly benevolent and fabulous universe. I think human achievement exalts reality and the universe as a whole. Your pugilistic stance is rather unappealing to me. > [@](#): > > I have no real knowledge of the specifics of Secular Humanism, _per se_. Humanism, the knowledge and acceptance that we can only view things from our own perspective and that we must learn to live and cope with it, is a philosophical stance which I believe is different to the social stance of Secular Humanism. I too am unfamiliar and, at any rate, do not see it as entirely germane to this debate. > [@](#): > > Am I indifferent to life? That I believe the universe is places no onus on myself to be likewise. If I am free, I am free to disagree with the universe, am I not? Let us both hope that you are a free man. > [@](#): > > I know. This makes it all the more odd that you, who are much more vehemently opposed to it than I (because I am content to merely ignore Original Sin as it does not apply to my life, yet you have started a thread with the apparent intention of convincing others that it should not apply to theirs), should hold such an unusual viewpoint as you do. I will need you to clarify the quotes and basis for your preceding statement in another post. It is rather difficult to divine your intent from the above. > [@](#): > > You claimed: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > > Morality does prohibit any migration towards evil, which is one of its primary functions. While immorality does not exclude the possibility of doing good, it neither propagates nor husbands such conduct > > Which rendered, in my mind, as “good people cannot do bad things, wheras [sic] bad people can do either good or bad things.” Given this, only people who **never** do “bad” things fall into the extremely narrow category of “good” people, and everyone else appears to be lumped in with the bad. I previously thought that 100% of the human race did bad things at some point in their lives, but if you know, as you obviously do, of people who have never committed a sin or moral failing, evidently I am wrong, and my pessimism only applies to a statistically significant majority. Good people _always_ have opportunities to do bad things. It is only their morality and rationality that bars them from doing so. I make no such effort to condemn humanity in such wholesale fashion as you suggest. To do so would be illogical and irrational. Once again, confusion seems to reign in your perception of my words. I have never claimed to know anybody who was perfectly unerring in their conduct. I am talking about personal _dedication_ to reason and rational conduct. That is what must be unfailing. Permitting oneself to intentionally and routinely do wrong when one knows better is evil and just plain stupid. That is the gist of my words. (To be continued) ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/108 "2003-04-04T05:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > Man’s fallibility does not automatically condemn him, only a willingness to be fallible does. Man is not born with a willingness to be fallible. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by McDuff_ > The flowery language is confusing my poor old addled brain here,Zenster, but this seems to be rather at odds with what you have said before. What in tarnation is “flowery” about the above two sentences? It is a straightforward distinction between the fallacious notion of man’s intrinsically evil nature put forward by the concept of Original Sin and the justifiable indictment of someone who intentionally choses to do wrong. > [@](#): > > If it is not the fallibility itself, but the “willingness to be fallible”, or, as I render that, the act of making mistakes vs the intention to act in a mistake-free way, then “morality,” the “intent” part of the equation, cannot be taken to “prohibit any migration towards evil.” Nobody _intends_ to be evil, and nobody intends to fail. If it is merely the “willingness to be fallible” that condemns a man, then nobody can be evil, by logical extension, unless they go out of their way to be so. This is entirely at odds with what you have previously said. “Nobody _intends_ to be evil.” What sort of puling inanity is that? Sure, Saddam Hussein is a choir boy and the entire world’s gotten him all wrong. A thug like him _knows_ he’s evil and he takes obvious relish in being that way. Obese people who scarf down their daily cheeseburger most definitely _intend_ to fail, as in heart failure for starters. Nobody who is _rational_ intends to do evil but that is not what you have said. Morality logically prohibits any migration towards evil. It does not entirely stop it from happening but its primary function remains unaltered. Any tendency to do evil _is_ reasonably inhibited by it. As a matter of fact, it is exactly going out of one’s way to do wrong that makes evil what it is. Volitional immorality is the primary root of evil. It is very rare that someone somehow manages to be _accidentally_ evil. A willingness to be fallible is only one of many ways to do wrong. You have yet to point out where my words contradict themselves. > [@](#): > > Of course, you may be using a different definition of the word “fallible” than I am used to. I do not think so and I’m fairly confident you do not either. > [@](#): > > I agree with you here, although not as strongly. I do not believe, however, that a belief in any inherent goodness in humanity or individuals is any less “poisonous”. That mankind has a noticable [sic] bias towards being shitty to each other is noted. To claim that mankind is inherently good, and that it is only social conditioning that forces us to be this way, is to subjugate the intellect of the individual to society far more than I am willing to. Rather, I do not assign any tendency or inherent morality in a human being to begin with, and place the onus firmly on the individual himself to make the decision to be good or bad. Anything other places one foot on a slippery slope towards denying accountability for your own decisions. We are largely in agreement here although I do not think man is inherently “biased” towards the mistreatment of others. Nature versus nurture debates shall be reserved for another thread. The sole purpose of the current debate is over how irrational and poisonous the notion of Original Sin is. I find it to warp humanity’s perception of itself in an unacceptable fashion. The denizens of these boards share a largely common stance of fighting ignorance. I consider the unqualified acceptance of Original Sin and it implications as tantamount to willful ignorance and have chosen to fight it with this thread. > [@](#): > > Although not wishing to put words in Lilarien’s mouth, I find your one towards her to be arrogant to a quite unnecessary degree. Perhaps, if you are able, you can imagine that to be “essentially human” is to describe what happens _beyond_ merely having a “capacity for mentative process” or being a “passageway for food.” Perhaps you can imagine a world in which people live a life of balance between their biological needs and the influence of their glands, their social needs and the influence of those around them, and their intellectual needs and the influence of their own brains, with their capacity for logic but also for sensible illogic and flights of fancy. Perhaps you can perceive that mere rationality does not dictate human behaviour, and that if it did, we would be all the worse off for it. Humans are caught halfway between heaven and hell, between animals and angels, where we can go either way and our choices are ours to make, where the influences that play upon us are balanced one against the other, leaving us no natural inclination to be like satyrs or cherubs. It is this place of balance and choice, with the capacity for immense failure as well as immense success, that makes being a human being such a vital and exciting thing to be, far better than being an angel or an animal. I perceive all of the above save, perhaps, the Heaven and Hell part. What I _do not_ perceive is how one can regard morality as inessential or stupid, which is what **Lilairen** stated. Any attempts to posit cognition or thought in the absence of reason will always be met with vehement opposition upon my part. It is intellectual fraud at its worst. To condemn me as “arrogant” for rejecting it on no uncertain terms is rather high-handed. > [@](#): > > Rather than that, might I spend my life without wars or McDonalds [sic] cheeseburgers? I understand that these are all things made by rational human beings as well, yet I would far rather do without them. I pick and choose my “ethics” as I see fit, and do things which only I see as good. This does not mean that I see other people’s ethics as being the result of “mental flaccidity,” but as the result of our shared “essential” (that’s essential as in inherent, not as in necessary - I feel you might have confused the two earlier) humanity. It is a _lack_ of ethics that is brought on by mental flaccidity. I also am not confused about what the essence of humanity is. Reason, rationality, productivity and logic rub shoulders along side inspiration, creativity and immense potential within the human mind. I like it that way and I will always fight attempts to profane any of those crucial life-giving elements. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/109 "2003-04-04T05:53:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by McDuff \* > It’s possible to empirically prove that tribal sins cause droughts, kings cause suns to rise, and sacrificing animals causes the rain to fall. Given the level of evidence available to your average prehistoric tribesman, it is, in fact, entirely reasonable to assume that such circumstances are true. This so incredibly asinine that I hardly know where to begin. You are conflating omenology and extispicy with scientific method. Others have already responded appropriately to this choice nugget of folly. > [@](#): > > Scientific method is lovely, but it should not be given more credit than it is due. It is a tool, not a philosophy, and much is not covered by its banner. Scientific method is one of the most powerful tools mankind has ever invented. It is quite useful in determining the validity of philosophical hypotheses. Its applications range throughout nearly the entire sphere of man’s existence and serves him supremely well. You are either unfamiliar with or totally underestimate this splendid technique. > [@](#): > > To achieve what? Methodologies for what? If I wanted to achieve world domination, or at least something resembling it, I would certainly go about it the way Stalin did. Maybe not Hitler, I think he overreached himself. But Stalin, man, the dude died in his bed. He was a sick, selfish bastard, but his methodology worked for him. I think, as an empirical study, Stalin’s life is a perfect example of what you can do if you want to maintain control over a population. To achieve what? To attain useful, ethical and viable mastery of the world around us. Stalin did absolutely none of this and did it disastrously. The demons of his twisted policies still haunt the emerging Soviet states to this day. He achieved fleeting domination over his people and paid a commensurately dear price in the currency of isolation, scheming and near psychotic paranoia. Evidence is emerging that Stalin may have been **poisoned**. His ever-present guards were mysteriously dismissed on the night of his death. To even venture that Stalin was some sort of efficient or capable statesman is utter rubbish. He was _temporarily_ effective and nothing more. Please take note that there is a huge difference between effective and efficient. If you would like to see a superb model of efficient government, please examine America’s constitution. The death, destruction, genocide, concentration camps and forced labor imposed by Stalin’s totalitarian kleptocracy was nothing short of pure vampirism. To extoll it is morally repugnant. Saying that his methodology worked for him is to indulge in a near idiotic degree of relativism. You yourself admit that “he was a sick selfish bastard.” What is to admire or emulate in that? The intense misery of his life confounds such an idle notion. He did not “control” his population in any proper sense save how one controls an animal herd’s population by thinning it. > [@](#): > > It’s all about what you want to do, isn’t it? Can you give me, really truly, a rational reason why I _shouldn’t_ take over the world and make you all my slaves if I could? Other than “well, it’s not very nice”? Yes, I’ll give you one rather simple, easy to understand and quite straightforward reason why you might not wish to enslave me. I would immediately expend all of my efforts in rallying like-thinking people to depose or kill you at the first opportunity and not necessarily in that order. If that does not represent sufficient deterrent, you are either psychotic, irrational or insane. I’ll let you pick. ---
**Author:** ![McDuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@McDuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDuff)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/110 "2003-04-04T20:37:36Z")
**Zenster** Given the length that the posts are getting to at the moment, I’m going to start doing some editing and consolidating of points, and no doubt miss some out. Otherwise it is likely to get very silly, very quickly (that is, if we aren’t there already). Firstly, on your objectivist leanings or otherwise: that’s all I wanted to know. Thanks for humouring me with an answer. Next up, [Altruism](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=altruism). Please note the lack of mention of the word “duty” there. [Fallible](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fallible). There is, I will admit, something slightly shallow in resorting to a mere textbook to define a term, but when arguing “common usage,” I feel that it does the trick. _On Hitler and Stalin:_ > [@](#): > > Call pandering to people’s weaknesses whatever you like. It is a form of manipulative persuasion that will never adequately replace true leadership. Which is exactly why we need to understand the whys and wherefores of his rise to power; that he did not just spring fully formed from Goering’s head, but that he convinced people of his position, was elected, and stood as one representative of a body of thought which had much scientific and socioeconomic backing at the time. As much as we can say, now, that someone like Hitler could not gain power, it is important to recognise that people can sneak in under our defenses and we will only recognise their evil thirty years later. Understanding the structures of power and persuasion, the limitations of rationality, and the inevitable populism inherent in all politics, is vital to watch out for the new evil tendencies which can arise. Fail to do that, and you end up with an entire ethnic minority in internment camps for the safety of the majority, regardless of “reason”. > [@](#): > > To even venture that Stalin was some sort of efficient or capable statesman is utter rubbish. He was temporarily effective and nothing more. Please take note that there is a huge difference between effective and efficient. He was pretty damned long-lived for something so temporary. And, as I said, efficient and effective are entirely dependent on what you want to be effective or efficient at. A van that explodes is an efficient bomb, but an inefficient van. Stalin’s regime was tremendously efficient at keeping a population cowed in fear of the government. Whether this was a good thing for the Russian people, or for Russia in the long term, is certainly debatable, but it was a good thing for keeping Stalin in power. > [@](#): > > Yes, I’ll give you one rather simple, easy to understand and quite straightforward reason why you might not wish to enslave me. I would immediately expend all of my efforts in rallying like-thinking people to depose or kill you at the first opportunity and not necessarily in that order. My dear boy, with that statement you’re ALREADY in a gulag. I’m sure everyone around you wants to kill me stone dead, but if I even think you might be thinking about it I’ll put a bullet in your head, and everyone around you knows it. Good luck with that. > [@](#): > > If that does not represent sufficient deterrent, you are either psychotic, irrational or insane. I’ll let you pick. I’ll go for insane. To be honest, I’m beginning to think it might be quite fun, actually. If I were to approach this “world domination” thing with a suitably sportsmanlike attitude, ie playing the game until someone managed to kill me, I wonder if I’d even mind the paranoia? What people often don’t understand about those with paranoid delusions is that they can be, in their own way, quite comforting, much like depression or mania. One might begin to think that it was worth the risk. Or one might, of course, be a Nietzchean superman. Who can tell? > [@](#): > > I do dispute as to whether the German people still need to bear any shame for the sins of their fathers. Nazism is still alive and kicking in Germany. As it is everywhere else in the world. If you consider for a single second that the German people, however you choose to define them, are somehow still responsible enough for the “sins of their fathers” to feel shame for them, I have a big pint of irony to hand you, called “Original Sin.” I am not responsible for the Adamic sin, and Hans the twenty-year old German is IN NO WAY responsible for the sins of the Fuhrer. He needs to bear NO shame for the actions which took place fifty years ago. Yes, he should be AWARE of them, yes, he should work to prevent them if he sees them starting to take off again, but there is no way on Earth that he should have to feel accountable in any way for them, any more than you or I should. I have no idea how you could, in a thread denouncing Original Sin, claim that shame by virtue of the geographical location of your birth is to be encouraged. _On Rationality and Goodness:_ > [@](#): > > I have had the pleasure of meeting several people who maintained a steadfast devotion to rationality. It’s a pity you have yet to experience such an encounter. Good people do exist in this world and I shall always do my best to encourage them. I have met, in my time, a great many “good” people. Many of these have, however, been chronically “irrational”. Why, I spent a considerable period of time living and working with a man who had built a children’s home and was taking care of children born to incarcerated parents. He had a number of children in his home, one of whom was a “crack baby,” and several of whom had severe behavioural problems. He looked after them because he and his wife saw a need, and decided to fill that need. He was also a fundamentalist Christian who believed that the Theory of Evolution was an unproved conspiracy to undermine God and morality, and who denounced the Pope on regular intervals for his evil lies. Rational? Not that I’m aware of. But fundamentally, wonderfully _good_. > [@](#): > > A person whose life values pivot utterly upon the unpunctuated consumption of Wimpy bars is a pretty meager specimen of humanity. And to (probably mis)quote Thoreau, “there is no more pitiful an example of mankind than he who spends the greater part of his life getting his living.” To be sure, he whose life revolves around cheeseburgers and nothing else is probably not the most exciting person, yet the Epicurean delights of this world are altogether too enticing for me to believe that avoiding them on principles of health is always the right thing to do. Is a man with a heart condition a fool to have sex, in the belief that he would rather die a few years early in the throes of passion, than live those boring years without sex? Rather, some would argue that he would be a fool NOT to. > [@](#): > > If you are managing to permanently disable yourself by working while wounded, then that is either stupid or illogical. I’ll let you decide as to which. You’ll be pleased to know that I did not do such a thing. However, I risk disabling injury every day I go to work. The money is terrible, I do it merely for the love of the work. As a colleague of mine said recently, “I love my shitty job!” Stupid? Illogical? I can’t see any way around it, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > Siezing the day, taking calculated risks and voluntarily attempting to achieve or perform great deeds is in no way irrational. I am rather astonished that you would think so. I am rather astonished that you would think otherwise. Life isn’t like the movies. In Hollywood, the calculated risks pay off every time. In real life, they often don’t. That’s why they are risks. Risks can be calculated, or spur of the moment. They can be decided after long deliberation, but they are often taken here, now, don’t wait for the translation, yes or no? Sometimes they pay off, and later people sit and talk about them and say “I didn’t think about it, I just jumped.” Sometimes they don’t pay off, and people sit and talk about how brave the guy was for jumping, but if they were to sit down and talk about whether his spur of the moment action was “rational”, most would decide otherwise, or consider the question meaningless. > [@](#): > > And you, as well, are misinterpreting mine. I speak of people who are dedicated to rooting out irrationality from their lives. While none of us are perfect, that does not lessen the importance of desiring perfection and holding it as a worthy goal. I know a number of people, also, who strive to achieve “perfection”, or “enlightenment” as they call it. I haven’t yet heard a Buddhist talk of rationality as if it were the be all and end all of existence, yet I have heard a number of Buddhists talk an awful lot of common sense. Is rationality like porn: you know it when you see it? > [@](#): > > “Nobody _intends_ to be evil.” What sort of puling inanity is that? Sure, Saddam Hussein is a choir boy and the entire world’s gotten him all wrong. A thug like him knows he’s evil and he takes obvious relish in being that way. Obese people who scarf down their daily cheeseburger most definitely intend to fail, as in heart failure for starters. I am quite glad I have met you, Zenster, for never before have I known a human being who is capable of knowing exactly what is going on in everyone’s mind, especially someone you haven’t met. I retract an earlier statement slightly; while I do not, in retrospect, believe that it is entirely impossible for someone to dedicate their lives to evil, everything I have ever encountered tells me that they always believe in a higher good that is served by their acts. Be that higher good “the will of God,” or “the good of society” or “scientific endeavour” or “genetic purity” or “my family’s security”, I have encountered no philosophy, no doctrine, that espouses bad for the sake of badness. Even those doctrines which masquerade as such, such as _The Satanic Bible_, in fact still posit a greater, deeper good which has been obscured by what they see as flawed ideas of good. The Crusades were Evil, but called Holy by many Popes. The Infitada is Bad, yet called Good by many Muslims. And, indeed, my views of Good and Bad, although they have a very definite and firm philosophical grounding, are my own, and they disagree with those of the Cleric or the Priest. Can I convince them through rationality? If I travel back in time a thousand years, it is I, not they, who is mad when I claim that the Earth travels round the Sun. Why, do not all the scholars and established authorities claim it to be the other way around? Is there not a fundamental philosophical reason to believe it to be the case? Did _God Himself_ not say otherwise? _On an interesting social and philosophical divergence of opinion:_ > [@](#): > > I think you are confusing given cultural norms or mores with what is frequently a higher standard of the Social Contract. Many societies are at complete loggerheads with human rights, one word; Taleban. This in no way alters the fact that the social contract is never at odds with the rights of any rational individual. The conditions of the preceding statement are intentionally quite precise. Here I will tell you now, clearly and precisely, that we definitely disagree on this issue. Society is not a stagnant ideal, it is a constant development, an evolutionary process. Society is always, in some way, at odds with the intellect. True, the intellect could not be established or grow without the compost of society, but it is inevitable, and indeed desirable, that society should be constantly broken and destroyed by the individual intellect. _On scientific method:_ > [@](#): > > This so incredibly asinine that I hardly know where to begin. You are conflating omenology and extispicy with scientific method. And you are under the impression that SM is more than it is. This is scientific method: Step one: observe something Step two: think about what might cause that something Step three: think about what else might happen if your ideas are correct Step four: test what you have come up with in the previous two steps experimentally. That’s it. Nothing bigger than that, nothing more splendid or unshakable than that simple set of rules. Beautiful in their simplicity, as most good ideas are, but it’s not magic. With the tools available to the average prehistoric tribesman, it is entirely possible to conduct experiments and measurements linking sacrifices to good crop growth. That your conclusions would be wrong is something that we, now, are all too aware, yet this does not change the fact that inaccurate tools produce inaccurate results. That was all my point was. With the tools available to Huygens, Newton’s Natural Philosophy was obviously apparent as preposterous nonsense. With the tools available to Gallileo, it was apparent that the Earth’s orbit was circular. It is in the nature of Science to believe the best explaination until something better comes along. It is not in the nature of science to stop believing in the best explaination before something better comes along. That is all my point at this case is, and ever will be. Science provides our best guess at the moment. Scientific truth is a function of time: what is true today may not be true tomorrow. As such, it provides no absolutes, no solid foundations, no guides for life, and _is utterly incapable of having anything whatsoever to say about morality_. For that, we need to go back to philosophy, from which science evolved, and of which scientific method is a subset. SM itself makes no sense, unless considered in a wider philosophical framework which gives it context and sets its boundaries. It only makes sense if there are things to which it does not apply. _On the Essence of Humanity:_ > [@](#): > > I also am not confused about what the essence of humanity is. Reason, rationality, productivity and logic rub shoulders along side inspiration, creativity and immense potential within the human mind. I like it that way and I will always fight attempts to profane any of those crucial life-giving elements. Is that all? What of the mundanity? What of the pettiness? What of the anger? What of the fear? What of the lust? I am afraid I do not recognise the human being incapable of the sin of being tedious. Indeed, I would argue that it is only this that makes our capacity for reason occupy so much time. Had we not the ability to look at a flower and say “oh look, a flower,” or even to _not notice it at all_, rather than being continually overawed at what is, after all, a wonderous construction, a fantastic work of natural beauty, we’d never get anything done. (I rather suspect that our ability to be inexplicably mundane is something that natural selection has given us, because no matter how beautiful a tiger is (and it is) it will still eat you :).) Even moving on from such flippant observations, I am afraid that the human being whose only virtues are logic and reason and productivity sounds to me like an incredibly boring chap. What of the tragic hero, brought low by the flaws in his very soul? What virtue is there in achieving anything if productivity is branded into your soul, if you are kept in its vice-like grip? Surely the achievement is in rising above what is naturally yours? A fish that remains a fish, dies a fish. Yet the fish that begin to take those steps onto land, ah, now those are the ones we care about. The millions of generations preceding them can go jump, it’s the transition from the old to the new that catches our eye. If “humanity” were nothing but virtue, if we had no inherent vice, there would be far less value in being human. Angels cannot sin; we can, which makes it all the more worthy of calling an achievement when we do not. _On the universe, and a misunderstanding pertaining thereto:_ > [@](#): > > Implicit in your statement is a notion that the universe is malevolent. It forces us to be irrational. Now you say, “The universe is indifferent.” You are indeed trying to have things both ways. Additionally, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in doing so. You cannot use self-contradicting premises in order to establish a logical point. You are leaving logic and rationality by the wayside in the attempt to do so. Gadzooks and forsooth! Must someone so peculiar in establishing the context of “permits” not allow a touch of leeway in the understanding of the word “force”? Gravity forces me to the ground. Force equals mass times acceleration. Use the Force, Luke! Let me elaborate on the point, attempting if I may to leave stones resolutely turned. There is nothing malevolent in a universe which forces irrationality, just as there is nothing malevolent in a universe which forces rocks to fall on your head in the event of an earthquake, or which irritatingly explodes a volcano under your village. That it can cause bad things to happen does not indicate that it _wants_ bad things to happen, or even that it is aware that they are bad things. They are things that happen, and the only people who assign values of “good” or “bad” to them are ourselves. > [@](#): > > Although I take issue at your sort of gesturing towards what I consider to be an incredibly benevolent and fabulous universe. I think human achievement exalts reality and the universe as a whole. Your pugilistic stance is rather unappealing to me. Fair enough. It’s not as if the universe gives a flying rat’s arse one way or the other what we think about it. _Finally, on the much tangented-from Original Sin:_\* > [@](#): > > The sole purpose of the current debate is over how irrational and poisonous the notion of Original Sin is. I find it to warp humanity’s perception of itself in an unacceptable fashion. But what of those branches of humanity that have never come across “original sin”? Are they any better? Are the Hindus and the Buddhists free from wars and opression? Are the Muslims better for their utter disregard for this doctrine? Are the inhabitants of China and Africa living a life of unparalleled goodness because this Christian poison has barely touched their shores? If it were “original sin” that were to blame for humanity’s corruption, this would surely be the case. As it is not the case, one must wonder; perhaps it is not this doctrine of “Original Sin” that is the problem, but something deeper than that, something common to humanity irrespective of religion and culture. > [@](#): > > I do not think man is inherently “biased” towards the mistreatment of others Well, the observed normal curve is skewed somewhat towards it, you must admit. The number of people towards whom the average individual will be kind and generous is somewhat limited, compared to the number of people whom he will gladly screw over for a few dollars more. If you like, you can claim that society conditions him to work this way. My own personal jury is out on the matter, but I certainly find no reason to believe that, however he starts out, he is inherently filled with goodness. ---
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211/111 "2003-04-05T03:24:46Z")
Ok, so we are settling on Paul for the concept, Augustine for the format, and the RCC for the settlement? I knew it was the RCC. But, as I also had stated, the idea of what exactly was meant by the concept has been argued since the beginning. Alright, Methodists, you’re off the hook for now. But watch it 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abomination-that-is-original-sin/164211.md?page=5)