Religious language in philosophy

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On this page there's a tense exchange between John Dule and me about, among other things, my use of the phrase "sins of omission" and whether there's a place for religious language like "sin" in facially secular philosophical discussions. In context, we were just sniping at each other, but I actually think this is an interesting question.

One thing this question reminds me of is the Mishima Yukio novel Spring Snow, in which the Japanese word tsumi is used several times in an extended discussion of abortion. Tsumi can mean either crime or sin and how it's translated in Spring Snow does make a difference to how an Anglophone reader approaches the novel. The official English translation uses sin, even though the discussion in the novel isn't religious in nature, so I suppose that translator is one point for the idea that secularizing religious language in this context is fair game.

On the other hand, we have the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, whose 1958 essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" argued that not only "sin" but even terms as basic as "duty" and "ought" should be jettisoned from secular moral philosophy because they assume the existence of a moral legislator that many/most modern philosophers and modern people in general either reject or treat as irrelevant. This is a startling position given that Anscombe was Catholic herself, but since most of her colleagues were not, it could be argued that she wanted to "clear the field" for those concepts of people who lacked the metaphysical premises that she thought were necessary for them to make sense.

What does Atlas think?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

No, I think we ought to use terms such as sin in secular philosophical discussions. Even better, we have a duty to use them.

[afleitch]

I think it should be excluded from secular philosophical discussions unless in specific cases, that word has taken on non religious connotations in usage.

Hamartiology beyond that should absolutely have no place in secular philosophy not only because it has no grounding within, but because it is for want of a better word; 'offensive'(?). It's the equivalent of not just in having a serious discussion about religious philosophy, but bringing into that professional field by default psychological concepts of what motivates religious belief that are not...kind...towards those who consider it worthy of serious discussion. In short, imagine not being able to have any private or institutional discussion of religious philosophy without 'but remember, they're probably f-cking mental for believing that' as a background hum. Not nice. Not helpful. Not respectful.

Ultimately secular philosophy, even with it's classic roots has been clearing away these concepts, hence why we have secular philosophy. Anscome is half right, but only in that secular philosophy, particularly post-war philosophy has been broadly small h humanist and so agency/actor language and words (like 'duty' and 'ought') have a place, but not say the concept of sin or appeals to singular or universal agency.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I see no use in bringing a religious set of implications into nuts-and-bolts philosophical discourse, but perhaps if one seeks to invoke a strange air of mysticism and spirituality towards a certain metaphysical or existential aim it is warranted in moderation.

[John Dule]

Ok, to be fair I might have reacted a little reflexively there, and I'm sorry about that. Mostly I was just irritated by your random interjection into the conversation; I don't really care that much about the use of religious language in philosophical terms ("temple," "sacred," and "holy" can all have secular meanings when applied in the proper contexts). I will say, however, that I think the word "sin" crosses the line into an inarguably religious statement, not merely a moral one. As humans, I believe we can condemn various immoral actions (which are not necessarily illegal) without resorting to the claim that those actions are outlawed by some higher power.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Philosophers can use whatever terminology they want, as long as it's defined somewhere. Readers can then decide for themselves whether to accept or reject it.

Anscombe's take was obviously trolling secular moral philosophy.