Alexander wrote:

Obviously one can call bullshit on all of this - it is rooted, as you say, in revelation, not philosophy. But I don't think the doctrine of original sin is anywhere near incoherent, even in its most traditional formulation (and there are many modern contenders, even among Thomists - Herbert McCabe is an example - which claim to be compatible with the dogmatic formulations.

Well, I suppose it's a bit stronger than that.

You can formulate it as:

1. The world is out of joint.
2. 1 needs an explainer.
3. Hypothesis: Original sin is such an explainer.
∴  Original sin stands as a viable hypothetical explainer for 1.

That's not that great, but it's better than OS being some mere revelatory item like Noah's Arc or the Nephilim. You need to accept 1, and I think most of us here has sufficient reason to accept 1. I also think most of us, accepting the PSR or some principle like it, will accept 2 as a matter of course if we accept 1. Thus we are presented with a cosmological quandary.

Last edited by iwpoe (7/20/2016 3:33 pm)

Jason wrote:

Sorry guys I misunderstood the term Xtians thinking that was some form of fundamental Christianity like young earth creationists . I am a Catholic Christian, but my point still stands.

My apologies there. I was just using it as a general term for Christians (is that spelling associated with fundamentalists? I picked it up from a Catholic friend who just preferred it as an alternative). It certainly wasn't meant in a perjorative sense.

Jason wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

Although I regret having to say anything offensive to Xtians belief in Original Sin strikes me as beliving being in an improvable and probably incoherent disease in order to belive in its cure.

I am by no means an Xtian but I wanted to give the catholic perspective of Original Sin, which is basically a fall from grace. I think an analogy will help make the point. Lets say, a prime minister / president fires an ambassador of his country due to disobeying certain rules. The ambassador loses his privilege to communicate with the prime minister / president directly. Not only that, the ambassador’s family also loses the privileges as well. It would be a great injustice if the prime minister / president actually punishes the ambassador by punishing his family and every generation of his after that, this is not what Original Sin is about. This analogy is by no means a completely accurate one but I hope it passes the point along.

The fall from grace is losing the privileges i.e. Divine gifts such as to directly commune with God, exemption from physical death and so on and once our first parents lost those privileges so also we did (just like the ambassador's family).  This is obviously based on revelation,  and there is debate whether it is important in philosophy but I certainly do not think that it is like a disease. Seen in the light of losing a privilege rather than a disease makes it a lot more coherent, in my opinion.

Okay, we shall use the gift terminology. What I hold arbitrary, as in we have no reason to belive beyond doctrinal claims, is that the capacity to connect with God is a privilege rather than a natural capacity that stems directly from rationality. I am certainly not going to grant the Sheed quote Alexander gives to the effect that 'because as human beings our nature is fully constituted without it' - if anything the capacity to connect with God just is what constitutes rational nature.

iwpoe wrote:

Well, I suppose it's a bit stronger than that.

You can formulate it as:

1. The world is out of joint.
2. 1 needs an explainer.
3. Hypothesis: Original sin is such an explainer.
∴  Original sin stands as a viable hypothetical explainer for 1.

That's not that great, but it's better than OS being some mere revelatory item like Noah's Arc or the Nephilim. You need to accept 1, and I think most of us here has sufficient reason to accept 1. I also think most of us, accepting the PSR or some principle like it, will accept 2 as a matter of course if we accept 1. Thus we are presented with a cosmological quandary.

1 is ambiguous - is the world obliged to contain more God than it does? If so then it's nothing but a concealed appeal to the Logical Problem of Evil and we know what happened to that. Other than that our capacity for error, as well as other things, can be explained by epistemic ignorance and more importantly the need for strife (I use a neutral moral term) as a way for contingent beings to further realise themselves, rather along the lines of soul-making.  

Alexander wrote:

Obviously one can call bullshit on all of this - it is rooted, as you say, in revelation, not philosophy. But I don't think the doctrine of original sin is anywhere near incoherent, even in its most traditional formulation (and there are many modern contenders, even among Thomists - Herbert McCabe is an example - which claim to be compatible with the dogmatic formulations.

To be more charitable what I'm concerned to challenge is a particular understanding of Original Sin as the loss of a privilege, without taking a stance on other possible interpretations. I think Christians would have more luck more luck claiming that not having a connection with God is an unnatural state brought about by the Fall (that still risks clashing over the nature of rationality though).

Last edited by DanielCC (7/21/2016 4:19 am)

iwpoe wrote:

​
Obviously not, since OS doesn't not address this issue but assumes God's sovereignty in the matter and then seeks to explain why we are in the position of needing divine aid. You already have to assume a lot of Christian aparati for this to make sense: especially the gap between ourselves and God requiring God's intercession.

Is not that last claim partially what is at issue?

iwpoe wrote:

That is not an explanation but a restatement of the issue, as is...

Re the first, only if one takes ignorance rather than error as equitable with evil. I’ll grant that might be a tenable position to take on the Privation account of Evil however.

Re the second, no it's not. Your argument claims the world ought not to be the way it is, whilst I object ought to be that way because it serves a purpose.

iwpoe wrote:

A classical thinker could put it as 'Why are our ends *ever* in a position of being unsatisfied? Why is Wisdom a problem in the first place?' or more universally 'Why aren't the Forms/Eternal things all there are?' or even 'Why are things in motion in the first place, as opposed to being everything they are all at once?'

Here the tacit acknowledgement is that error is part and parcel of the nature of contingency, ergo the question becomes 'Why are there any contingent beings in the first place?'. I am surprised it should be placed in the mouth of a classical thinker though since they have a well-worn answer - contingent entities exist because the Great Chain of Being requires no gaps.

AKG wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

​
Obviously not, since OS doesn't not address this issue but assumes God's sovereignty in the matter and then seeks to explain why we are in the position of needing divine aid. You already have to assume a lot of Christian aparati for this to make sense: especially the gap between ourselves and God requiring God's intercession.

Is not that last claim partially what is at issue?

iwpoe wrote:

That is not an explanation but a restatement of the issue, as is...

Re the first, only if one takes ignorance rather than error as equitable with evil. I’ll grant that might be a tenable position to take on the Privation account of Evil however.

Re the second, no it's not. Your argument claims the world ought not to be the way it is, whilst I object ought to be that way because it serves a purpose.

iwpoe wrote:

A classical thinker could put it as 'Why are our ends *ever* in a position of being unsatisfied? Why is Wisdom a problem in the first place?' or more universally 'Why aren't the Forms/Eternal things all there are?' or even 'Why are things in motion in the first place, as opposed to being everything they are all at once?'

Here the tacit acknowledgement is that error is part and parcel of the nature of contingency, ergo the question becomes 'Why are there any contingent beings in the first place?'. I am surprised it should be placed in the mouth of a classical thinker though since they have a well-worn answer - contingent entities exist because the Great Chain of Being requires no gaps.

This is off-topic but are you a Platonist, and do you believe in reincarnation?
 

To the first question, 'No' although as a more Neo-Platonically influenced Scholastic Classical Theist there is naturally a lot of a cross over (would you call Augustine a Platonist?). I suppose that in terms of 'religious' identity I have more kinship to Plotinus than many orthodox Christian thinkers.

With regards to reincarnation I do not know. Would you apply that term to living other lives in other kinds of world? (One might say this continued finite lives are a form of Purgatory but that has excessively negative connotations). I don't think the objections Feser and Oderberg give to that notion, even on a Hylemorphic account, hold water though.

DanielCC wrote:

My apologies there. I was just using it as a general term for Christians (is that spelling associated with fundamentalists? I picked it up from a Catholic friend who just preferred it as an alternative). It certainly wasn't meant in a perjorative sense.

No need to apologize, I think your friend is right and it was an honest mistake on my part. 

DanielCC wrote:

Okay, we shall use the gift terminology. What I hold arbitrary, as in we have no reason to belive beyond doctrinal claims, is that the capacity to connect with God is a privilege rather than a natural capacity that stems directly from rationality. I am certainly not going to grant the Sheed quote Alexander gives to the effect that 'because as human beings our nature is fully constituted without it' - if anything the capacity to connect with God just is what constitutes rational nature.

I think we have the capacity to understand God and that is what constitutes rational nature. Using our rational nature we can understand God but not connect with Him, we need something more, in my opinion. For example, I can understand my kids via my rational nature but I connect with them on a different level (that level includes my rational nature but is not the only “ingredient” in my connection with them). Of course, God is the Ultimate and He may connect with us on a different level than I do with my kids but I think our most satisfying human relations provide us with a small glimpse of what it would mean to connect with God. Our rational nature will get us a long way to God but that alone is not the key (that is where I differ). That is also why I think revelation has a place in understanding God even deeper than what our rational minds alone will get to. I think Christianity certainly has a very strong case for itself. Yes we can poke holes in it as with almost anything else out there but it still stands out remarkably well.