Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Discuss the April 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
Post Reply
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Buzzard3 »

Sins are just man-made agreements. Wow, that's original ...
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Sushan wrote: April 3rd, 2021, 3:08 pmAre sins merely man-made laws?
No, and for several reasons. Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist. If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.

If the author thinks that sin is a law, or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law, then he is just redefining words willy-nilly in an entirely unphilosophical and unhelpful way. Neither St. Matthew, Mephistopheles, nor Bill Maher would be tempted to affirm that sin is a law or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Good_Egg »

Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 7:23 pm Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.
Very good. I think you've shown that the proposition as stated is false by definition, from the everyday meaning of the words.

If it is permissible to speculate, I suspect that the intended underlying proposition is "divine law does not exist". And the argument for that proposition goes something like:

The feelings that we associate with the concept of sin - guilt, shame, moral disapproval of the actions of others - are adequately explained by the human social dynamics around man-made law. We know that man-made law exists, and that many believe that it carries moral weight - that we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of our society. So it is unnecessary to postulate divine law in order to explain our experience of sin. So by Occam's razor we should assume that divine law does not exist.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Good_Egg wrote: February 1st, 2022, 9:33 am
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 7:23 pm Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.
Very good. I think you've shown that the proposition as stated is false by definition, from the everyday meaning of the words.
Thank you. I think that's right.
If it is permissible to speculate, I suspect that the intended underlying proposition is "divine law does not exist".
I also agree with this.
And the argument for that proposition goes something like:

The feelings that we associate with the concept of sin - guilt, shame, moral disapproval of the actions of others - are adequately explained by the human social dynamics around man-made law. We know that man-made law exists, and that many believe that it carries moral weight - that we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of our society. So it is unnecessary to postulate divine law in order to explain our experience of sin. So by Occam's razor we should assume that divine law does not exist.
Yes, that is a cogent argument. To be clear, the idea is that the religious person has mistaken an experience of mundane wrongdoing for sin, because they have mistaken a man-made law for a divine law.

This is helpful because now we have moved from a rhetorical claim to the outline of a real argument. Certainly if the experience associated with the concept of sin can be intuitively explained without recourse to divine law, then we would have one good reason to think that people who believe in sin are mistaken. This is the crucial premise in your argument, and I think it would need to be defended.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
AgentSmith
Posts: 108
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by AgentSmith »

I would say that it's precisely because we're animals (sin is permissible) that sin is an idea that transcends humans i.e. it has other-worldly origins. You wouldn't expect a dog to do tricks like we see on TV shows unless it has been taught them (by superior beings, humans). We have to be taught to be good (it's not ingrained, virtue) as children, through adolescence, to adulthood. Who taught the first humans about morality? That's the question that gets me all excited!
Slavedevice
Posts: 48
Joined: October 10th, 2015, 8:34 pm

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Slavedevice »

Sin is traditionally based on a book written by people in the Middle East area of the world. By force and economic gangsterism, other cultures shockingly now think this book relates to them! It’s the biggest shim sham in all of history. Nordic people had a nature worshiping type spirituality and had totally more liberal views on things like sexuality. The biblical laws were designed to make people FEAR god and to promote male dominance. Most cultures/religions agree that such things as murder (of course) are unacceptable (but not “sin” that you are doomed to hell for)
User avatar
detail
Posts: 171
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by detail »

There are several types of sins, one is the man made agreement , that provides a society with enough peace in order not to collapse. There is an instinctive sin feeling, even existent for animals, that is somehow different. The inner feeling for sin, is nothing made by society but is just a derivation of an instinctive feeling for guilt. Moral values and feelings somehow seem to differ. The one is made by man, the other is somehow created by the beeing itself. The sin can be a moral concept or is just a more subtile version of guilt as a feeling, that makes one somehow uneasy.
Slavedevice
Posts: 48
Joined: October 10th, 2015, 8:34 pm

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Slavedevice »

To @Detail”. The concept of SIN is not innate. Sin is unique to Abrahamic religion! Eastern and Pagan religions have no such concept as SIN. I agree people have feelings that are more like SYMPATHETIC to other’s suffering. But things like monogamy, sexuality, etc are not innate. Most traditional sins are man made
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Good_Egg »

Slavedevice wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 3:09 pm Sin is unique to Abrahamic religion! Eastern and Pagan religions have no such concept as SIN.
I would have thought that most religions involve some moral "rules", and hold certain actions (theft, murder etc) to be morally wrong.

What's the difference between saying "murder is morally wrong" and saying "murder is a sin" ? Is there any ?

Or is the latter just the former expressed in the language of Abrahamic religion ?
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by GrayArea »

Sushan wrote: April 3rd, 2021, 3:08 pm The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?
By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Good_Egg »

GrayArea wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 5:09 am
By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.
Don't follow the logic here. If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by GrayArea »

Good_Egg wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:03 am
GrayArea wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 5:09 am
By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.
Don't follow the logic here. If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?
Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.

But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.

That is to say, you made me realize that I owe some more explanation to you regarding my previous post—Just simply by us thinking that sins are objective, our thoughts can make it look like sins are objective. In our thoughts, the objectiveness and subjectiveness of sins are not distinguished. Because that's what thinking something is true means.

But they are not, and this is not decided by us, and is rather decided by the universe that we live in. This is proven by my previous statement "The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be."
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Good_Egg »

GrayArea wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:15 am
Good_Egg wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:03 am If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?
Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.
That's fair enough. It becomes a socially-agreed cultural truth as well as an objective physical truth when enough people in the culture believe it.
But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.
There's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill.

Yes there is nothing in the Universe that makes it physically impossible to commit murder (to take one example of an act that most of us would, as part of our man-made agreement, agree was a sin). But that was never what morality claimed. Morality claims that we should not murder.

You're right - the question is how much of an objective reality that agreement reflects. Is there some sort of truth of the universe that murder is bad, to which that human agreement is a response ? Or is it merely an arbitrary social convention ?

Could we all turn around and agree that we're all fine with murder now ? Or would we run into consequences that we could not ignore ? Consequences not at the level of physics but at the level of recognisable badness ?

If the only level of objective reality you will accept is physics then you've chosen to define away any possibility of objective morality.

Whereas Kant has it that if you can will it to be a universal rule that people may murder each other at will then the act isn't sinful. Again, with a sense of "can" that is weaker than physical impossibility. Because lying to oneself is possible...
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by GrayArea »

Good_Egg wrote: February 7th, 2022, 7:38 pm
GrayArea wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:15 am
Good_Egg wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:03 am If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?
Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.
That's fair enough. It becomes a socially-agreed cultural truth as well as an objective physical truth when enough people in the culture believe it.
But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.
There's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill.

Yes there is nothing in the Universe that makes it physically impossible to commit murder (to take one example of an act that most of us would, as part of our man-made agreement, agree was a sin). But that was never what morality claimed. Morality claims that we should not murder.

You're right - the question is how much of an objective reality that agreement reflects. Is there some sort of truth of the universe that murder is bad, to which that human agreement is a response ? Or is it merely an arbitrary social convention ?

Could we all turn around and agree that we're all fine with murder now ? Or would we run into consequences that we could not ignore ? Consequences not at the level of physics but at the level of recognisable badness ?

If the only level of objective reality you will accept is physics then you've chosen to define away any possibility of objective morality.

Whereas Kant has it that if you can will it to be a universal rule that people may murder each other at will then the act isn't sinful. Again, with a sense of "can" that is weaker than physical impossibility. Because lying to oneself is possible...
The prohibition of the act of sinning is a man-made agreement, whereas the sin or the result itself that is committed through an act of sinning is objective. But this is only from a human perspective. From the "Universe's" perspective, it does not matter if a lifeform lives or dies. The Universe is still itself. In fact, its existence is directly defined little by little, through these individual events themselves.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Good_Egg wrote: February 7th, 2022, 7:38 pmThere's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill...
Great post!
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Post Reply

Return to “Wilderness Cry by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021