From The New York Times-
The
doctrine of original sin has often been held to be intolerably dark, a
counsel of despair. It says we are by nature morally flawed, that we are
born in error and live in it irremediably, that each of us deserves
punishment and will receive it, unless redeemed by God’s arbitrary
grace. It insists that we cannot cure ourselves by our own efforts, and
it has led some people to make extraordinarily disturbing claims, such
as that children who die in infancy could burn in eternal hellfire.
It’s
hard to argue with the fact that inherent depravity is a profoundly
pessimistic idea, and one with potentially bad effects. A rejection of
the idea of original sin might argue that if we believe we can be good
and do good by our own efforts, we are likelier to strive to do so. If
we believe we are intrinsically evil, it follows, we will cease trying
to make ourselves or the world better. Why not, then, think more
positively about ourselves and believe in the possibility of human
goodness and our potential for improvement right here in this world?
It
would take a book or a shelf of them to examine original sin as a
theological doctrine, going back to Augustine’s interpretation of Adam
and Eve. Even so, it is not clear that the preachers of original sin
have managed to explain why a benevolent God would create such
profoundly flawed creatures as they believe us to be. And if you don’t
believe in God at all, or not in that sort of God, the whole line of
argument is moot.
Despite all of
that, I would like to entertain the notion that a secularized conception
of original sin is plausible, and that believing it might have good
effects. In short, perhaps it’s time for a new Puritanism, though with
fewer witch trials this time around.
More here-
No comments:
Post a Comment