Ilogicity of Original Sin
"The universe has a logical order, impossible to circumvent. You are unlikely to harvest something that you have not planted. " (Edna Frigato)
In our first logical analysis, we will study the contradictions contained in the main theory presented by traditional Christian religions to explain the cause of suffering and evil in the world: The theory of "Original Sin".
According to this belief, Adam and Eve had been warned by God that they should not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, deluded by the serpent, first Eve and then Adam, they ate the forbidden fruit, thus countering God, who drove them out of the Garden of Eden and transferred such sin to all the rest of mankind. Proponents of this belief cite the following biblical passages to justify it:
-
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Rm 5.12).
-
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rm 3.23)
In this way, "Original Sin" is the main response of traditional Christian doctrines to explain all the evil that exists in the world and, consequently, the cause of human suffering, who, according to these doctrines, are already "born in sin".
In part II of this work, in the chapter "The Danger of Fundamentalism" we talk about the risks of interpreting literally a book which is considered "sacred", accepting its concepts as "absolute truths," without analyzing them under the light of logic and reasoning, free from any dogmas that could affect the impartiality of such an analysis.
In order to carry out this logical analysis, we must first approach the concept of the word "Justice". Such a concept is intuitive and there is no way to question it. We all have a sense of what is "fair" and what is "unfair." Even the Bible itself presents a criterion of Justice when affirming that “God will repay each person according to what they have done.” (Romans 2:6)".
Therefore, we can unequivocally say that the concept of justice is totally related to the concept of merit, that is, the application of deserved punishment or rewards, or simply "giving to each one what belongs to him by right". Therefore, it is impossible to say that it would be fair for someone to receive something that is not of their merit.
Once this concept has been clarified, let us answer some questions so that we can construct our logical argument:
1. Is God fair?
Surely this is a question to which all religious doctrines which defend the existence of an infinitely perfect Creator Being would answer as yes! And indeed, we ascribe to God, the Supreme Creator of all things, the attributes of perfection in all virtues, and it is not reasonable to imagine that God could commit injustice, or we would have to regard Him as being imperfect.
2. Would it be fair paying for someone else's mistakes?
Obviously the answer to this question is no! The simple act of "punishing someone for the mistake of others goes directly against the most elementary concept of justice as we have seen at the beginning of this chapter. For example, imagine a person who committed a murder and the police, unable to arrest him, takes his son to prison. Would it be fair for the son to pay for his father's crime? Of course not.
Analyzing the answers to the two questions above, we come to a very obvious and clear logical conclusion: If God is fair, and it is not fair someone pay or be punished for someone else’s mistake, God could never do such injustice!
Therefore, God could never, under any circumstances, make someone pay for the mistakes or the so-called "sins" of another person or receive any kind of suffering without deserving it. If He did it, He would be unfair and consequently could no longer be considered perfect.
Logical argument analysis
Premise 1: God is Perfect, therefore He is infinitely Fair.
Premise 2: It’s not fair paying for someone else’s mistakes.
Conclusion: God would never make someone pay for someone else's mistakes, or He would be Unfair and Imperfect. Therefore the theory of "Original Sin" is logically inconsistent
As presented in the chapter "Logic basics", in order to refute an argument we must demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false or that there is no logical inference between the premises that leads to the conclusion.
Therefore, there is a very great difference between "disagreeing" with an argument and presenting a logical rebuttal to it. In order for us to really refute the above argument we would need to do at least one of the three options below:
1. Demonstrate that 1st premise is false: In this case we would have to say that God would not be infinitely fair, that is, he could commit injustices, which would mean that God would not be perfect, thus going against all existing Doctrines that support the Divine perfection.
2. Demonstrate that 2nd premise is false: In this case we would have to contest the very basic concept of justice, assuming the absurdity that it would be fair to suffer or pay for the mistakes made by another person.
3. Demonstrate that the premises do not lead to the conclusion: It is impossible to deny the existence of logical inference between the premises since both clearly lead to the conclusion: if God is fair (first premise), and it is not fair to pay for someone else’s mistake (second premise), it is unequivocally deduced that God would never make someone pay for someone else’s mistakes.
.
Analyzing the above argument, we see that the two premises are true and there is unquestionable logical inference between them. Thus we conclude, through the rigor of logic, that the above argument is valid and consistent, which demonstrates the illogicality of the Original Sin Theory.
Contradictions of the Original Sin Theory
In the chapter "Logic basics", we present the "Principle of non-contradiction", which states that something cannot be "FALSE" and at the same time be "TRUE", that is, something cannot "BE" and "NOT BE" simultaneously. Now, if God is "fair", he cannot be "unfair." Then we cannot at the same time affirm that "God is fair" and then attribute to him the practice of an injustice. In doing this we would be committing what we call in Logic a "contradiction."
In this way, the Theory of "Original sin" leads us to a clear and evident contradiction because, through it, it is affirmed that "God is fair" but "commits an injustice", punishing millions of people for something that only two others did .
Besides this intrinsic contradiction, the Original sin theory contradicts another passage found in the Bible itself, which says that one person will not pay for the error of another:
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them". ( Ezekiel 18:20 )
So again, how to explain this contradiction? If the Bible itself, which is the basis of Christian doctrines, asserts that one person will not pay for the error of another, how can one justify a theory that goes against the very teachings contained therein?
Reincarnation logical response
Unlike traditional Christian Doctrines, which are based on the belief in a single life, Reincarnation explains, through a very consistent logic, the cause of human suffering, as it is able to identify their origin in the actions performed in previous lives. The book "Heaven and Hell" by Allan Kardec, brings, in chapter VII, article 10, the following explanation:
"The Spirit suffers according to his imperfections, whether in the spiritual world or in the corporeal world. All the miseries, all the difficulties that he faces in the corporeal life are the consequences of his own imperfections, the atonements of faults committed in this same existence or in previous existences. By the nature of the sufferings and difficulties that he faces in the corporeal life, we can judge the nature of the faults committed in an earlier existence and the imperfections that caused them."
Although Reincarnation is known from earliest antiquity, only Spiritism, codified by Allan Kardec in the 19th century, has explained rationally and scientifically all the laws that govern the process of rebirth and evolution of the spirits. The "Book of Spirits", basic book of Spiritist codification, presents in detail the principles that underpin the logic of Reincarnation, among which:
1. Evolution
God, the Supreme Intelligence, continually creates spirits in conditions of absolute equality, that is, "simple and ignorant", giving them the opportunity to evolve, both morally and intellectually, by their own merits, through incarnation in matter
2. Free will
"Free will" is given to all, that is, the power to decide which direction to take: the path of good, evolution, moral and intellectual progress, or the path of evil and stagnation. God never interferes with a person's free will.
3. Law of Cause and Effect
Every effect has a cause, and every action generates an effect proportional to the cause that generated it. No one pays for something they did not do or for something that someone else did. God does not punish anyone! His infinitely wise and just laws maintains the balance and harmony of the universe, and He does not need to interfere applying punishments or giving rewards. Through the Law of Cause and Effect, everyone will reap the fruits corresponding to the actions that they themselves have practiced.
4. Reincarnation
Reincarnation in matter is the way through which God bestows His infinite mercy upon human beings. Through successive lives, spirits have the opportunity to repair their mistakes and thus reach an evolutionary level so that one day they will no longer need to be reborn on this planet, that is, they will no longer need to use a material body, starting to act on higher, subtle planes that many call "heaven."
In this way, we note that Reincarnation is not subject to the illogicity presented in the central argument of this chapter, because no one will ever be punished for something they did not do or for the mistakes of another person. So God, through the reincarnationist point of view, can really be considered fair, since each one is only given "according to what they have done".