In Svorjak’s article on evil, wherein he explores the nature of, what he calls, radical sin he makes some interesting comments on some of the essential qualities of sin.
His argument rests entirely on the distinction between sin and danger, and he claims that mostly we confuse the two. Danger is, by his own stipulative definition, a value which is attributed to a situation or entity which is believed by the observer to be placing a threat on something they wish to protect. Like most of us he believes that sometimes the value of danger is misattributed and sometimes this is aptly done. But this is an issue in itself- which does not form part of his central argument. The reason for this is because it should not be difficult to observe, if the agent is being rational, when there is a real danger and when it is imagined.
However, when feelings of danger are confused for a certain detection of sin it becomes very difficult to pull the two apart. This is because mostly we are (and this is true across all cultures) hard wired for recognising evil. Whether Svorjak actually believes in sin as something which has independent existence is hard to determine from his argument, and maybe even irrelevant.
His point really is that, when the one is confused for the other it becomes impossible to even start looking at whether the danger is real. It raises defenses. It results in witch hunts and in crusades. His appeal, and this it must be said, has a normative or revisionary component. The request is that we use obvious observable evidence, reliable testimony and reason to determine whether the danger is real. If not it cannot be sin.
His argument rests entirely on the distinction between sin and danger, and he claims that mostly we confuse the two. Danger is, by his own stipulative definition, a value which is attributed to a situation or entity which is believed by the observer to be placing a threat on something they wish to protect. Like most of us he believes that sometimes the value of danger is misattributed and sometimes this is aptly done. But this is an issue in itself- which does not form part of his central argument. The reason for this is because it should not be difficult to observe, if the agent is being rational, when there is a real danger and when it is imagined.
However, when feelings of danger are confused for a certain detection of sin it becomes very difficult to pull the two apart. This is because mostly we are (and this is true across all cultures) hard wired for recognising evil. Whether Svorjak actually believes in sin as something which has independent existence is hard to determine from his argument, and maybe even irrelevant.
His point really is that, when the one is confused for the other it becomes impossible to even start looking at whether the danger is real. It raises defenses. It results in witch hunts and in crusades. His appeal, and this it must be said, has a normative or revisionary component. The request is that we use obvious observable evidence, reliable testimony and reason to determine whether the danger is real. If not it cannot be sin.
2 comments:
Goodness you are fascinating and a font of knowledge and, no doubt wisdom.
Does your word sin have teleological implications or does it just mean immoral?
In reference to your last paragraph, are you saying that if there is real danger, then there is no sin. Can not danger be sin's twin sister or at least her companion (I am not talking about hellfire and horned beasts, but in the here and now)?
I think the whole thing about his article is that he is saying that in order for something to be a sin it must at least have the property of being dangerous. Hence, danger being an 'essential' property of sin. Part of its definition, if you know what I mean. Consequently, if there is no danger there can, by necessity, be no sin. Huge relief. I feel like I am in a sort of ecstacy. This is the furthest I have been away from my Calvinistic roots.
So all things which are sins will be dangerous, but it is not necessarily the case that all dangerous things are sins. But this is another story and not one that I am interested in. Regarding teleology: The orthodox notion of sin has teleological implications, but I refer to immorality when I speak of sin. Or, more precisely, inhumaneness or lack of care and sensitivity and compassion and integrity. But there are no consequences for this beyond this lifetime (but much in it, I think).
So, to answer your last: danger is sin's twin sister, being part of its defining characteristics.
And everything is about the here and now.
Post a Comment