original sin

On Sun, 21 May 2000, Spectors wrote:

> 1) ON PAPER, sociobiology is the opposite of extreme fundamentalist
> Christianity and its doctrine of "Original Sin."  The "OS" doctrine is 
>most
> commonly associated with pre-capitalist Roman Catholic theology, but many
> conservative, fundamentalist Protestant groups adhere to this also, while
> not necessarily using the same rhetoric.

A variety of religious groups believe in original sin (I'm not sure where
people get the idea that only Calvinists do).

> 2) While it is important to explore the inner logic of various arguments, 
>it
> is especially important to understand that what nurtures socio-political
> arguments the most is whether or not someone believes that these arguments
> serve certain interests. The most important of these are class interests.

Now that, to me, sounds like a doctrinaire statement.  And since this is a
world-systems list, I'll also add:  the critique of the base
superstructure model and economic determinism has been one of the
mainstays of world-system analysis.

> What is the role of particular arguments in supporting various class
> interests?

Why should this be the only question one asks about a theological
doctrine?  How is it different from the sociobiologist who discounts any
role besides the genetic in answering questions about human behavior?

> 3) Obviously, the doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Predestination" in
> general served to bolster the status quo of pre-capitalist societies. I
> don't think this statement is controversial enough to require an 
>explanation
> here.

Obviously, the doctrine of original sin (not the same as predestination)
has been used to bolster a variety of interests.  What interests did/does 
it bolster when the groups that adhere to it do not hold power?  Think how
you would have responded to a claim that the doctrine of unequal exchange
was used to bolster the legitimacy of the Soviet state before 1991. 

I'm no expert, but as I read original sin, it says that human beings are
in the state they are in because they presume to have ultimate knowledge
of the world, to decide what is good and what is evil on the basis of,
that's right, interests.  It is prideful to assume that you are better
than the next person because of your skin color.  It is prideful to put
economic growth ahead of ecology.  And most importantly, original sin, the
assumption that human beings can attain godlike knowledge, is the product
of free will and the temptation of ultimate power.  You have the potential
to atone for original sin if you freely relinquish your claim to absolute
knowledge.  I don't know how much more further one can get from the claims
of some sociobiologists that human behavior is hard-wired and that one day
we will have a completely predictive social science.

(In case my "interests" in making the above statements becomes suspect, I
should say that I am not a Christian, nor a practicing Jew). 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu