I believe in Sin. In the logical necessity of it, and therefore its existence. You don't need a censorious deity or a sniveling, moralistic clergy to understand Sin. For my own part, I don't believe in the existence of the former, and I understand the latter, and their sins far too well.
I know Sin so well because I am an exceptionally productive sinner. You probably are, too, and I hail you as my colleague. Admitting to being a sinner is no great accomplishment of clarity or personal honesty. After all, we are assured by our holiest collection of myths and fables that “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of G-d.” - Romans 3:23.
Indeed, those who are not sinning constantly, racking up quite a score in 24 hours, are so rare as to be classifiable as what evolutionists call “hopeful monsters.” Since Sin is so common, and Wisdom so rare, it would probably be more scientifically accurate to stop vaingloriously referring to ourselves as “Homo Sapiens,” and take up the more scientifically accurate cognomen, “Homo Peccator.”
You would be right to wonder what definition I'm using for “Sin.” Here it is:
Sin is willfully acting against the best nature of humanity, and/or the best destiny of the individual.
Which suggests, as happens often in Philosophy, a cascade of further definitions.
“Best nature of humanity:”
Every species has what can be called an “Evolutionary strategy,” which is (as the cascade of definitions rolls on) that set of behaviors, talents and traits that, without which, the species and the individual would be at the mercy of nature. It is what allows the species to survive and reproduce.
Humans have a complex evolutionary strategy. We have unimpressive fangs and claws. We are not especially fast, durable or strong. We survive because we deal with the problems of survival by collectively producing solutions. If you are alone in the wilderness, and are confronted by a non-human apex predator, you will not survive to pass along your genes without a product of what we call “civilization,” the name we give to our elaborate interdependence, mediated by another adaptation – language, which allows us to pass instructions for solutions across vast distances and the entire history of our species. The rifle that will allow your survival was made by thousands of people that you will never meet, working together in accordance with instructions passed along by language to create, distribute, and improve the rifle.
With the rifle, you can get your dinner. Without it, you are dinner.
In order to use that rifle effectively, you need another of our evolutionary adaptations which allows you to comprehend how to load the rifle, the best way to aim, what the likely outcome of using or not using the rifle will be. The most effective user of the rifle will be one who has studied, and understands how to aim, what the effect of wind and terrain will be, how to steady the weapon.
And, of course, what you have learned and observed may allow you to consider not shooting the beastie at all. Perhaps you have learned, from language communicated to you combined with learned experience, that this particular creature is currently no threat to you. This is also a manifestation of civilization – education, that assists us in solving the problems of survival. Or perhaps you learned (and were taught) to use tools to build a critter-proof fence.
All these factors can be described by a set of processes. First, you observe, as clearly as you can. Then, you apply those observations to the problem. Finally, you apply your training, and what you have learned to the problem.
Quickly, I hope.
This process has been called “Reason,” and it is what makes the effective and consistent application of the rest of our strategy possible. Reason is the ability and technique that allows us to apply both civilization and language to the problems of survival. Without it, language is useless, since it cannot be “decoded” into the real world to guide a precipitate action, and without Reason, the structure of civilization becomes maladaptive and incomprehensible.
The human strategy, interdependent, successful (so far) and remarkably nimble in adaptation, consisting of Language, Civilization, and Reason, is, so far as we know, unique to our species. How it might have come to be is a story for another essay, but its use of society and the communication of information to meet problems, rather than inherited instincts (which we have remarkably few of) is a bold divergence from the usual set of strategies and adaptations.
Our strategy has allowed us to, in a remarkably short time, climb the pyramid to the status of apex predator. We are a very successful and dominant species, with an absurdly wide ecological range. Our possession of culture and language has adapted us to life in the deserts, the tropics and the arctic. We have radically reshaped nature itself to suit our thriving, and our comfort.
And it will allow us the power to destroy it, along with ourselves. But let's not get ahead of the argument.
“Best destiny of the individual:”
If a species can be thought of as an organism, then the individual can be thought of as the organs, with discrete roles and processes to perform. The organs are not independent entities, they are dependent on the body, and the body is dependent on them. This is not an original thought on my part, having been a common metaphor familiar to many cultures and times. The common reference to someone being the “right hand” of an individual or institution, or even the use of various organs and structures of the body to describe someone socially, “He's the heart of the team. She's a real brain. They're an asshole, cock, cunt, etc.”
As an aside, notice the fact that calling someone an organ, even if that organ does low status work, is inclusive. Every organism needs an asshole. We don't like to dwell on it, we don't expose it in public (except under certain circumstances) but we would quickly be in dire distress if it ceased to function. It was once said that the formal title of the Pharaoh's doctor was “Guardian of the Royal Bowel Movement.” By calling someone an “asshole,” we are saying, “We don't find you pleasant, but we need you.”
If we really wanted to insult someone – to imply that they are a useless waste of organic material, it would be more accurate to say, “You're a real auricular tubercule.” Which was, and is Darwin's Point.
Anyway, if we can think of an individual as, at least in part, an organ of the body that is the species as a whole, we know that some organs function better than others. Organs can be diseased, unfit, or catastrophically lost. They can wither with disuse, or decay with misuse. They can be improved, sometimes replaced, or rendered unnecessary by evolutionary adaptation to new environments or circumstances.
All these things are true of individual humans, too, vis a vis their existence as a part of the whole. But unlike purely biological organs, we make conscious decisions. We can choose to perform, or not perform our functions.
If the strategy by which humanity survives and thrives is the extension and interaction of Civilization, Language and Reason, then the individual is who acting in accordance with the support and adaptation of those traits and practices – refining them and improving their functions is acting accordance with their proper role. Hindering those functions, or failing to perform them is acting against the proper function of the individual, and damages the fabric and function of Civilization.
The “organic metaphor” breaks down when we consider the difference between organs and individuals. Human individuals have a crucial trait, necessary to their adaptive and social functions that an organ like a heart or a liver do not have. Humans are aware of their own existence. They experience pleasure, pain, grief and joy personally, not primarily as a function of the existence of the human whole.
This presents a necessary problem – necessary in that it is an obstacle we really can't do without. It is the existence of the individual, and their individual experience that makes civilization possible. No individual perspective, no change, and no adaptation. No adaptation to changing conditions is the preamble to extinction. Without an individual desire to communicate, for reasons of their own there is no language. Without the individual mind, there is no Reason. While we can compare, contrast and improve the products and function of our reason by involving others, the actual process of reasoning is an individual effort and experience.
While individual consciousness and life experience is necessary to our evolutionary strategy, it does present immense complexities. You are not, like a bee, born into your role in serving the good of your species. You must be taught it, seek it, and learn it. This is, perhaps counter-intuitively, an advantage for us. By relying on society to educate the young, and relying on the individual to observe the situation for themselves while at the same time weighing and incorporating what is communicated to them, we adapt society to conditions much more quickly than biological evolution and natural selection would allow.
But as I said, this does create certain problems. Picture attempting to play a game of chess in which the pieces were self-aware, and had experiences and lives of their own. Every gambit would be filled with mortal fear for the endangered pawn, every sacrifice of a piece would provoke shrieks of dying agony. What if every piece had ambitions of their own, and desires? Who would you be then, to expect them to move in accordance with the common good, even to the point of self-sacrifice? Who would you be to command them, even to their destruction?
Picture trying to write a symphony in which each note you place on the staff were aware of their existence, had their own ambitions, their own understanding of harmony and rhythm. What would that sound like? Well, one imagines discord and cacophony, but it would not necessarily be so. If the individual notes communicated with one another, and decided to create beauty (who wants to be a part of a useless mess?) and to harness and direct their individual contributions to the creation of their best possible symphony, the beauty of the composition is a function of how well they coordinate, their collective vision, and how willing individual notes are to contribute to the whole.
Let's return to our self-willed chess pieces for a moment. Let's posit that they become convinced of the necessity of winning the game. They communicate and coordinate without the need of an external chess player. They have experience as chess pieces, and there are now sixteen minds working on the problem instead of just one. They may well succeed against mindless chess pieces manipulated by a single external player. Or, if they are selfish or just not very good at chess, they will fail.
While individualism may be seen as inefficient compared to a “hive mind,” in which individual simply does what they are instinctively “programmed” to do, rather than needing to be convinced, individualism has demonstrated strengths. When an arctic dwelling civilization teaches the young how to make a parka, and each civilization has slight variations, suited to their microclimate and daily practices, or a desert dwelling people shows a child how to arrange a headdress to avoid the harm done by sun and sand, you are seeing the adaptive function of civilization in action. No one says that the making of a parka or burnoose is “inborn” or “instinctive.” But it is truly adaptive.
Now, consider when some gifted member of that civilization considers the traditional garment with a rational eye. They might conceive of some improvement that will make the garment more useful, in response to changing conditions. While there will be some resistance to any change by traditionalists, if the improvement really does provide an advantage to the wearer, it may be adopted by the whole people eventually. And every tradition was once an innovation.
These divergent minds, so disturbing to tradition, are absolutely essential to the proper adaptive function of a society. Though often denounced, or even persecuted, these innovators are critically important. The subject of where they come from, and their proper relationship to the traditionalists is the subject of a future essay, but for our purposes here, I am pointing out that individualism is an necessary feature of a successful civilization.
So, let's return to the subject of Sin. To review: Sin is a willful action that works against the proper functioning of a functioning, adaptive civilization, clear, effective communication, or the proper function of the reasoning function, both collective and individual.
We use the term “willful” since maladaptive acts that derive from ignorance or lack of ability are not morally culpable. Turning away from facts in order to further one's own desires, which I call “Stupidity,” is, therefore, an offense against the proper functions of civilization, and thus is morally culpable. Bigotry, the conscious decision to discount, oppress, or limit the individual (or a class of individuals) on an irrational basis also damages both the adaptive ability of the civilization, and the ability of the oppressed individuals to contribute, is also morally culpable.
Likewise, negligence in one's duty to contribute, physically or intellectually, is morally culpable. You are not alone in the world. You have a necessary role to play in the advancement and adaptation of humanity.
If the individual is to function properly, they must be free to think, and act in such a way as to seek their desires, since a miserable individual is unlikely to be a productive or cooperative one. Oppression is maladaptive, and it corrodes the connection of individuals to the common good.
However, the individual, or a group of individuals is not, and cannot be free to act in such as way as to damage the society as a whole. This difficult balance between the needs of a society, and the rights of the individual is facilitated by Reason, and by clear and effective communication. Dishonesty hinders that communication, and effective reasoning, and is thus immoral and maladaptive.
Sometimes, individuals, or groups of individuals consciously decide to act against the whole for reasons of their own advantage. Since this is unnatural, since our very nature suits us to cooperation we can call this “perversity.” When this is done by individuals, we call this “selfishness,” when it becomes common in a society to the point where it erodes the cohesiveness and and adaptability of the society we can call it “decadence.”
So we need not posit a divine lawgiver, who can be pleased or displeased to acknowledge the existence of Sin. And since sin is a volitional act, and volitional acts, repeated become habits, we can describe such mindsets and habits as “sinful.” And we can denounce, restrain or act against them, within the bounds of Reason and respect for the necessary freedom of the individual.
We can also posit the possibilty of “salvation,” a change of mind and action that returns the individual to the pursuit of the common good. Indeed, such forgiveness is an essential part of proper social functioning, since we all have “come short” of our best performance, either by perversity, selfishness, or negligence.
This moral system is, obviously, incomplete. Precisely how Reason can function, how clear communication can be best facilitated, and how the society and the individual arrives how at the necessary balance between the individual and the society can best be struck, and how all these things can change in response to changing conditions and circumstances are topics too large for a simple essay. But my aim here is to demonstrate that we don't need gods or external chess masters to seek and understand our best destiny as a species, and as individuals.
We are enough. We'll get along, if we are willing to work at it, and assume the responsibility of doing so.
Brilliant. It's another way of saying that if we do not move away from our tribal instincts which no longer serve us, we're doomed. And yet, Christian nationalism seems to be moving us in the exact opposite, siloed direction. A pox on all gods... at least the dualistic ones.
(Seeking forgiveness, whether in advance or post hoc, for what follows: With all the references to body parts, should there not be an Appendix?)