Narcissism, Spiritual Pride, and Original Sin

Narcissism has roots in childhood and a broad impact on society. Parental abuse, neglect, or exploitation result in unmet emotional needs that leave low self-esteem and patterns of longing for affirmation. When these needs are not gratified, interpersonal conflict ensues. At the extreme, torture, wars, and other conflagrations can be seen to have roots in narcissism, which is thus construed as the psychological explanation for what religion defines as original sin. The cold, dark pain of narcissistic woundedness comprises an abyss in the soul. Spiritual resources, including mysticism and surrender to divine love, may offer deep healing for those wounds.     

The Benefits of Following Your Pride: Authentic Pride Promotes Achievement

Although the emotion authentic pride has been posited to promote achievement, it remains unclear precisely how this works. Here, we tested whether authentic pride promotes adaptive downstream achievement outcomes by motivating individuals to engage in appropriate behavioral responses to success and failure. In two longitudinal studies (N = 1,132), we measured pride emotional responses to a prior performance and subsequent changes in achievement‐oriented behavior and performance outcomes among (a) adults training for long‐distance running races and (b) undergraduates completing class exams. Authentic pride shifted in direct response to achievement outcomes, such that those who performed well felt greater pride. Furthermore, individuals who felt low authentic pride responded to these feelings by changing their achievement behavior in a functional manner. In Studies 2a, 2b, and 2c, we found that pride‐driven behavioral changes led to improved future performance among low performers. In these studies we also demonstrated that the effect of authentic pride on achievement is independent of that of self‐efficacy, which in fact works in an opposite manner. Taken together, these results suggest that authentic pride functions as a barometer of achievement, promoting behavioral responses that lead to improved performance.     

‘Sin is Rightly Called the Punishment of Sin’: Francis Turretin’s Reformed Doctrine of Sin

ABSTRACT

This article contextualizes Francis Turretin’s (1623–87) doctrine of sin, and in particular his understanding of sin as a punishment for sin. Specifically, it elaborates on the theological context into which Turretin speaks. Through analyzing Turretin’s historical situation, it progresses to the content of Turretin’s theology in light of his theological and political opponents. Utilizing Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology (1679–1685), St Augustine’s Contra Julianum, and John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, amongst others, this article evaluates Turretin’s view of the doctrine of sin and its relation to medieval and early-modern European theology. Ultimately, it argues that Turretin’s view of sin as a punishment of sin is born from his understanding of God’s holiness being demonstrated through his ‘vindicatory justice’ and Turretin’s self-understanding as an ‘orthodox’ theologian in the grand tradition of Western theology extending back to the Church Fathers.     

On Original Sin

This article sets out a constructive account of original sin that attempts to take seriously the Christian tradition (particularly, the Reformed tradition), and that avoids the serious theological drawback of the doctrine of original guilt. I dub this account the moderate Reformed doctrine of original sin. I also argue that an adequate understanding of original sin must be open‐textured enough to accommodate some version of the story of evolutionary human development. Although I do not offer an account of how original sin is consistent with evolutionary human development, the doctrine set out here is commensurate with several live options on this controversial theological topic, which I take to be a strength, rather than a weakness, of the view.     

Taking Sin Seriously

Contemporary Roman Catholic ethics endeavors to take sin seriously by offering theologies of sin that emphasize it as a force and as a basic, personal orientation. Such efforts rightly counter the Catholic tradition's earlier reduction of sin to sins, and sins to external acts and moral culpability. But perhaps they go too far in this regard. By engaging Charles Curran, this study argues that inattention to sins undermines the theological referent of sin as a discourse that concerns more than moral culpability, obscures God as the source of freedom and value, and neglects the way in which acts express and sustain sin and fashion a personal orientation. Drawing on the work of Jean Porter, the essay shows that attention to sins highlights the historicity, particularity, and provisionality of human acts because of the theological referent and analogical character of sin and sins.     

Sociobiology and Original Sin

This paper argues that the creation narrative of the Fall in Genesis 2:4b–3:24 is not history and does not contain a doctrine of original sin. The doctrine of original sin as a theory of human nature needs a new foundation. The contemporary science of sociobiology has a theory of human nature that is remarkably similar to major versions of the Christian doctrines of original sin. To incorporate sociobiology's theory of human nature into Christianity is to lay the foundation for a new, ecumenical understanding of original sin.     

Pride and Moral Responsibility

Having the emotion of pride requires taking oneself to stand in some special relation to the object of pride. According to agency accounts of this pride relation, the self and the object of pride are suitably related just in case one is morally responsible for the existence or excellence of the object of one's pride. I argue that agency accounts fail. This argument provides a strong prima facie defence of an alternate account of pride, according to which the self and the object of pride are suitably related just in case one's relation to the object of pride indicates that one's life accords with some of one's personal ideals. I conclude that the pride relation, though distinct from the relation of moral responsibility, is nonetheless a relation of philosophical interest that merits further attention. 1 … the objects which excite these passions [pride and humility], are very numerous, and seemingly very different from each other. Pride or self‐esteem may arise from the qualities of the mind; wit, good‐sense, learning, courage, integrity: from those of the body; beauty, strength, agility, good mien, address in dancing, riding, fencing: from external advantages; country, family, children, relations, riches, houses, gardens, horses, dogs, cloaths. [I] afterwards proceed to find out that common circumstance, in which all these objects agree, and which causes them to operate on the passions. —David Hume 2     

Sin and bioethics.

The essay starts out with defining the biblical concept of sin in the Old and the New Testaments. The literal knowledge of divine truth is distinguished from its truthful and spiritual interpretation. A further distinction should be made between the Creator of life (God) and the medium or "intermediary creator" (man) of life. I argue for the "single wholeness" of the human race and for the unity of human responsibility in bioethics. In delineating the teaching of the Church on abortion and family planning, I show that the healing of all human diseases, from traditional interventions to genetic ones, is a Christian duty and is in accordance with Christ's mission on earth as long as one has not been directly or indirectly involved in "reproducing" or "designing" one's descendants or destroying or damaging human life even at its very beginnings.     

The Problem of Propagation: Original Sin as Inherited Discourse

As Modernist doctrines emphasizing the unity and agency of the educated self are increasingly set up as the straw men of contemporary educational discourses, premodern and Medieval theories of selfhood tend to disappear from the horizon of educational thought altogether. In this essay, in order to subvert this overcoming of our intellectual past, I examine Thomas Aquinas’ reading of the doctrine of original sin. Relying on Graham McAleer’s claim that Aquinas’ metaphysical theory sanctifies the body, I argue that Aquinas’ understanding of original sin relies on a discursive, pedagogical model to account for human finitude.     

The Human Dark Side: Evolutionary Psychology and Original Sin

Human nature has a dark side, something important to religions. Evolutionary psychology has been used to illuminate the human shadow side, although as a discipline it has attracted criticism. This article seeks to examine the evolutionary psychology’s understanding of human nature and to propose an unexpected dialog with an enduring account of human evil known as original sin. Two cases are briefly considered: murder and rape. To further the exchange, numerous theoretical and methodological criticisms and replies of evolutionary psychology are explored jointly with original sin. Evolutionary psychology can partner with original sin since they share some theoretical likenesses and together they offer insights into the nature of what it means to be human.     

Ethnic Inequality and National Pride

This article examines patterns in individual attachments towards the nation‐state in multiethnic countries. Specifically, we examine the effect of between‐ethnic‐group political and economic inequality on these attachments. Pairing attitudinal data from the sixth and most recent wave of the World Values Survey, administered between 2010 and 2012, with ethnicity measures from the Ethnic Power Relations dataset, we show that between‐ethnic‐group political inequality significantly weakens national pride and identity, but between‐ethnic‐group economic inequality does not have a similar effect. Our findings provide robust support for the view that ethnic‐group separatism in divided societies is motivated, not by the quest for economic power, but by considerations of lost status and dignity that can only be recovered through ownership in state institutions. Hence, the binding constraint on national integration in these settings is political, not economic, inequality.