I'm an atheist, but I believe in sin. 나는 무신론자이지만 죄를 믿는다. naneun musinlonjaijiman joeleul midneunda.
Most religions seem focused on the idea of sin. Avoiding it, atoning for it, condemning it and forgiving it. Those are the four currencies of the Irish-American Catholicism I was raised on.
I appreciate that religions have the balls to deal with sin. The rest of us kind of pretend it doesn't exist.
Morality is relative, and one man's sin might be another man's virtue, but everyone knows they are in the wrong sometimes.
대부분의 종교는 죄의 개념에 초점을 맞춘 것처럼 보입니다. 그것을 피하고, 속죄하고, 비난하고, 용서하십시오. 그것들은 제가 제기 된 아일랜드계 미국 천주교의 4 가지 통화입니다.
나는 종교가 죄를 다루는 공을 가지고 있음을 감사한다. 나머지 우리는 그것이 존재하지 않는 척합니다.
도덕성은 상대적이며, 한 사람의 죄는 다른 사람의 덕행 일 수도 있지만 모든 사람들은 때로는 그릇된 것으로 알고 있습니다.
Why do you think other atheists don't care about what's moral? Because that's all sin is, right, an immoral act.
Can you tell me what is the difference between sin and an immoral act?
Of course sin and morality are both subjective and based on the values of the person, community or culture talking about it. Sin is not more objective by any means. It is just what different cultures and cults see as immoral. If sin was objective, religions wouldn't disagree on what their imaginary gods wanted from us.
I do think people care about morality on a personal level. What I'm trying to say is that religions have developed systems for dealing specifically with moral transgressions and how they affect us. As a seven year old Catholic I was taught about going to confession and having my sins forgiven, but also told I should spend time dwelling on my sins and thinking about how to do better in the future.
I definitely think that atheists think about this personally and there is evidence to show that atheists tend to be more moral than religious folks. But secular society itself doesn't talk about personal morality. We don't discuss our sins nor do we offer each other redemption.
Secular society thinks about crime, and deals with that, but most people don't think of themselves as criminals. But we're all sinners, right? It seems like perhaps as a society we should talk about this more. Sin can lead to guilt and shame and they can eat away at a person. You can go to therapy - something I think everyone should try - but it would be nice if there were more common wisdom around this.
Overall I believe the move away from religion is a good thing for humanity, but as we secularize we can also look at what religion was doing for us and see if we want to incorporate some of those features in more modern forms.
They do, but I'm not sure they've got the right way mainly because sin is defined in dogmatic ways. Many allow slavery, many are homophobic and so on. In religion what's moral and not is not discussed honestly but dictated and dictated from a flawed source at that.
Atheism itself is not a philosophy and has no direct bearing on morality. It's just the rejection of the claim that there is a god since the claim has not met it's burden of proof.
But large portions of secular society discuss morality and what you might be looking for here is secular humanism. Many atheists support this philosophy, but some don't.
None of us are perfect, sure. I haven't seen many atheists claiming the opposite. The problem with common wisdom about this is that it leads to dogmatic assertions, discrimination and so on that's why I think we need an open discussion and the idea of universal sin is not that productive of a concept in that framework.
I absolutely agree. But I would rather leave the idea of sin in the past and talk about moral and immoral behavior, the fuzzy edges in between and how do we deal with the consequences of our actions and inactions in the world and as part of organized society. I think we should view morality in terms of wellbeing, not sin.
Thanks for replying. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I think they reflect the secular notion of morality as a purely social phenomenon.
For instance when we think of religion and sin it is natural to think of the things some religions condemn, like homosexuality, or eating the wrong food, or ignoring the poor (or touching the poor!), or wearing revealing clothing etc. But that stuff is all about controlling people. It's the bad side of religion.
To me the word sin applies to actions or inactions that leave you disappointed in your self - selfishness, hurting others , violence, mockery etc. We all do these things, because we are humans and humans are fallible. Most religions have time and/or rituals set aside to encourage us to reflect on our failings and commit to being better. This is the thing that is missing from secular institutions.
Religions offer redemption for the things you don't like about yourself. People who hate the actions they have taken in the past are encouraged to love themselves and forgive themselves. This is made possible because each religion encapsulates the idea of a magic power that has the authority to forgive.
Morality is important, but it's the way we talk about it doesn't cover many things that are covered by the idea of sin. Morality is usually focused on how we treat each other in the outside world - peace, justice, economics etc. But let's say you and I are roommates and I lied about eating the last cookie in the cookie jar or something similar. Most people wouldn't think about that as an issue of morality, but lying to each other can eat away at your psyche and make you not like yourself. That is the area of sin I think we are missing.
Thank you for taking the time to engage as well! Even if I disagree, I appreciate the questions you are talking about and the points you are making.
I absolutely agree that we need to reflect on our actions. I also think that thinking about morality inevitably forces us to think about those. I know for certain it has that affect on me personally.
Redemption is a tricky concept. I feel that some religions offer that too easily and that sometimes backfires.
I feel all of those are well withing the scope of morality and ethics and we would be better off discussing them without the dogmatic approach of sin. But if you want to use the word sin in a non-dogmatic subjective way, than the word doesn't really matter and the things we are talking about are pretty much the same regardless of the fact that you want to call them sin and I prefer to call them immoral or unethical acts.
The reason I'm cautious about using the word sin is because it's difficult to separate the good aspects of religion and the bad ones. And we can incorporate all the good aspects into our ethics and morality conversation and examination, including the personal and internal one, without having to resort to the exact sin concept.
I think the last-cookie-and-a-roommate example you gave is well within the scope of morality and ethics and we could have a meaningful conversation about it discussing what's right, wrong and if one is warranted to feel guilty in that situation without bringing in sin at all.
I get what you are saying about the word sin. I used it partially just to be polemic, although I do like the more personal connotations of sin versus abstract notions like morality.
Sin is an overloaded word. It can mean a general concept "Murder is a Sin" - and that matches up nicely with saying "Murder is immoral".
But sin also is used as a verb "I feel bad when I sin". I guess you could say "I feel bad when I am immoral".
And finally, sin can refer to a specific instance of immoral behavior, "I feel bad for that sin I committed last Tuesday". That tends to work better than "I feel bad for the moral transgression I committed last Tuesday:
I see and then I agree. I guess the word that you used the threw me off into a tangent was actually "believe", no just "sin".
I absolutely agree that using the word "sin" instead of the phrases "immoral act" or "moral transgression" has practical value. The thing is I do think that the word is really overloaded with religious concepts and dogmatism and reclaiming it for secular purposes with an altered usage would be really hard. Despite that I do see the utility in trying to do so now.