You can’t get at OA’s fairly standard Christian concepts of sinful, bad, evil behaviour or predilections without considering other religious, political or non-religious/political positions on these issues.

AFAIK, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim parents and teachers are pretty keen on setting standards of behaviour both for home and school, (as are atheists like me.) When you come to atheists, I suppose the most prominent one at the moment is Dawkins. (Reluctantly. I’m not a big fan – I see him as being a fundamentalist – just as blinkered and restricted as others. But I can’t think of anyone else at the moment.)

However, I did agree with one observation he made in a TV thing I saw during the hols. He’d just finished talking with a couple of hellfire and damnation types when he suggested that he thought that we should “do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not …” here the quote fades in my memory but it’s approx ‘not for fear of penalties in an afterlife.’

We do not need to believe in original sin to recognise that everyone has the capacity to do good and to do wrong. Good parents, teachers and other leaders are “good” because they focus on bringing out the best rather than the worst in others. But the worst is there to be got at.

And I object to your Tourette’s furphy. A well-brought up Tourette’s sufferer recognises when they’ve lost it – they apologise instantly for outbursts, just as you or I might for accidentally knocking someone else with a knee or an elbow.

As for political positions. Left and right are irrelevant. The same sort of let chaos rule nonsense has been happening in USA schools regardless of the political colour of the state & federal governments.
Libertarians and anarchists are e x t r e m e l y strict about the idea of all of us taking personal responsibility for our own actions.

None of this matters except to illustrate the point that there’s nothing exceptional about OA’s writings or his moral stance, apart from the fact that he’s willing to think seriously, research these issues and write clearly about them.

Finally we are getting somewhere. That is exactly what I am saying about sin. I am suggesting that the fact that we are not all saints is utterly unmissable.

The commonality between the two claims (do believe and should believe) is that it is ‘obvious’. It is this ‘obvious’ness that leads to your assumption that people either generally do or should believe in Original Sin.
.

.

“You seem to be under the strange impression that something can’t be part of Christian theology and an obviously true fact about the world. That the universe exists is a part of Christian theology. That doesn’t mean everybody who believes the universe exists relies on a religious perspective.”

The existence of the universe is not unique to Christian theology. This, in part, is because of clear empirical evidence for it.
The existence of Original Sin is, I believe, unique to Christian theology, and then is disputed amongst different denominations. Ideas of ’sin’ might be more widespread, but still aren’t universally accepted.

And nor is there the evidence for Original Sin that there is for the universe.

I believe it is up to you to show that Original Sin is ‘obvious’ in its truth “can really be proved”, as this is what you claim.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between saying people should believe something and that they do believe it?

Please explain how this goes against my assertion that “the idea of sin relies on a religious perspective” when Chesterton calls Original Sin ‘part of Christian theology’.

You seem to be under the strange impression that something can’t be part of Christian theology and an obviously true fact about the world. That the universe exists is a part of Christian theology. That doesn’t mean everybody who believes the universe exists relies on a religious perspective.

This is one Chesterton quote you have used: “They began with the fact of sin–a fact as practical as potatoes… Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” Unless you are disagreeing with Chesterton, this clearly seems to support my argument rather than show it to be a strawman. You are saying that sin is obvious, and we all believe in it (or should do).

Please explain how this goes against my assertion that “the idea of sin relies on a religious perspective” when Chesterton calls Original Sin ‘part of Christian theology’.

There’s a really strong smell of straw round here. I posted a passage from G.K.Chesterton about exactly those people.

You say that this answer my point fully: “In suggesting an existing inclination to moral failure I am echoing at least part of the doctrine of Original Sin. This is not to say these ideas rely on a religious perspective. What I have talked about here can be deduced from obvious observations of both the world around us and one’s own inner moral world, but that doesn’t stop them being seen as religious ideas.”

I reassert my point – the idea of sin relies on a religious perspective. Because you share in that perspective you see sin. That is why you can say that sin “can be deduced from obvious observations of both the world around us and one’s own inner moral world”…

So, again, you make an assumption. You assume that everybody believes in sin (although it is a religious idea), even though not everyone is religious… because you do. Or, have you got conclusive evidence that everybody deduces from natural observation that sin existst?

I covered this point here: http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2008/10/14/human-nature/

Society can indeed justify children being free from sin, if society stops using religious ideas like ’sin’. Outside of that religious framework, of course we are free from ’sin’ – it does not exist.
Society can, likewise, justify children (and everybody else) from being without free will, through applying something like biological determinism.

I can understand that you are saying that “According to me, OldAndrew, society cannot justify declaring…”. This is because you believe in sin, and not in biological determinism. You still have not shown why disbelieving in either ’sin’ or ‘free will’ is more widely unjustifiable, e.g. to everybody everywhere and not just you.

Well, when you want to argue against what I am saying, rather than the words I use to say it, let me know.