Derek writes:
"Actually for someone who really believed in sin - a deeply religious person
for example - I imagine it would be as real as the Eiffel Tower. More real
perhaps. The Eiffel Tower is a neutral entity that they can ignore if they
like.
Not so with sin. So whether sin is 'out there' or not (and I'm not
sure where 'there' is) is probably of secondary importance from their point
of view, don't you think?"
"Of course we can say they are 'deluded' and there is no sin. But that is
just our way of looking at things, isn't it? If I were a Christian I would
very
probably believe in sin (I'm not entirely sure what I might mean by it), and
someone telling me it was in some way not real because I was treating it as a
'"real thing" out there,' would, I suspect, cut very little ice with me.
"Am I missing the point. (I ask in the light of your comment that I have
traits that 'handicap me in philosophy'.)"
The truth is, Derek, though first glance may not reveal it, a closer look at
the posting reveals ambiguities, and apparent inconsistencies. It seems to be
asking different questions while thinking they are the same.
I'll try to explain why I say that, though I suspect that you and any of the
passing internet traffic that pauses here to window-shop will be made briefly
aghast by such tedious hairsplitting and the thought that anyone could,
seemingly, delight in doing it.
First, I'd recommend the posting stress the distinction between the NOTION
and the "real" thing the notion is allegedly "of". People who have a notion of
The Eiffel Tower recognize that their notion is one entity, and they believe
there is also, in France, the real, non-notional entity.
Second, notice the two possible reader-interpretations of "real". When you
say, "sin" could be more "real" to some people than "The Eiffel Tower", I'd
guess what you have in mind is that the NOTION of "sin" is more constantly with
them, more fearsome, more life-affecting than the notion of the Tower. I used
'real' earlier to take advantage of the kitchen-table sense of the word --
"non-notional entity". Ordinary, healthy folk would say the structure in Paris
we
call 'The Eiffel Tower' is "real", while Santa Claus's house and factory at the
North Pole are not "real". The trouble with my usage of 'real' is that
notions are also entities, albeit always a little hazy and constantly morphing,
so
they are also "real".
Believers in "sin" believe there is an external-to-the-mind, non-notional
entity that "corresponds" to their notion -- and their word -- 'sin'. We could
agree on where the non-notional Eiffel Tower is geographically, because that
entity is a "physical" object, and we might conveniently agree that our notions
are all "in" skulls. But I don't blame you for not being sure where alleged
non-notional ABSTRACTIONS are supposed to be. Since I personally don't believe
in
the non-notional "existence" of any abstractions, their alleged "place of
residence" is not a problem for me. But I know I'll convince very few listers
that abstractions like "meaning", "relations", "categories", "qualities",
"evil",
etc obtain solely in their minds. Regardless of what I think, I know
believers will remain convinced that there is a "real" non-notional entity that
their
notion "sin" "corresponds to", just as believers of other kinds feel sure
there "exist" non-notional entities called miracles, destiny, luck, the
"sacredness" of "holy" ground, angels, ghosts, and heaven and hell.
Your line, " So whether sin is 'out there' or not is probably of secondary
importance from their point of view," has some problems.
For one, it could be read as suggesting they don't care much if sin is real
or not. But I'm fairly sure that's not what you had in mind. The "truth" of
their belief is very important to them. If you asked them, "Would you care if
in fact there is no such thing as sin?" they'd probably answer with the likes
of, "I certainly would care, but it's not an issue because there's no question
of sin's not existing, it DOES exist." We'll get back to this.
The second problem is with the ambiguous word 'importance'.
I think your idea was this: If they firmly BELIEVE in sin's NON-notional
existence, they will still feel and act the same way even if, unbeknownst to
them,
they are mistaken and "sin" is solely notional. Notice that I've replaced the
word "importance" with 'feel and act the same', because that's one guess at
what you have in mind as "of importance".
For example, let's say someone firmly believes there is a fountain of youth
in the jungles of Brazil. His struggle to get there will be exactly the same
regardless of whether a non-notional fountain actually "exists" or not. Let's
say a man reads his Bible, or his Koran, and this gives him the notion that if
he lives a lifetime of avoiding sin he can expect in his afterlife the rewards
of his conduct. If in fact there is no afterlife, this will not affect his
feelings and actions as he lives, provided he believes there is an afterlife.
Our beliefs, our feelings, our decisions to act, are all notional entities.
Walls, germs, poisons, pizza, the sun, and many other non-notional entities
impact in a direct, discernible, scientifically measurable way on our bodies'
senses and thus on our noions, including how we feel and act: But it's the very
nature of alleged non-notional entities like luck, destiny, sin, angels, that
they don't afford us with any comparable way to test with surety whether or not
there truly is a non-notional entity "out there".
Many hard-headed folks feel scorn for "irrational, mystical" convictions like
the belief that luck or fate or "miracleness" is making events occur, or that
a patch of ground is "holy", or an act "has sin-ness". They want "evidence",
the results of a "scientifically" approvable test of the "existence" or
non-existence of the alleged entities.
In return, many religions like Catholicism, rather than being intimidated by
the charge of non-testability, celebrate "faith" in its believers.
Non-believers' telling them "sin" does not exist would indeed "cut no ice with
them".
Interestingly, many of the hard-headed people who scorn the "irrational",
without-evidence belief in the existence of such "mystical" non-notional
entities
as luck, destiny, sin and "artness" are themselves religionists.
My point here is that it's this very non-testability that makes it not just
of "secondary importance" but of NO importance, no impact on how a person feels
and acts in this life. He will, while living, act and feel the same even
though, unbeknownst to him, there is no afterlife.
So I'd rephrase "whether or not sin is really "out there"". I'd delete the
confusing phrase, "whether or not". The less confusing locution is: If sin
does not in fact exist, it will not affect the confirmed believer at all -- in
the sense of changing how he feels or acts.
However, there is another sense of "importance" that has nothing to do with
how a person feels and acts in this life. Suppose the religionist is right, and
there IS an afterlife, sin IS a "real" non-notional entity that always comes
with consequences from committing it, and there IS a heaven -- and a hell for
sinners.
In that sense, "Whether sin is 'out there' or not" is definitely NOT of "no
importance".
I realize you may look at all this, Derek, and say, "Aw, hell, none of that
was what I meant at all." But I'm in a no-lose situation, 'cuz then I can say,
"See? I told you it was ambiguous!"
**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
