Abstract |
Although original sin is a traditional Christian doctrine, it has been the subject of significant criticism in many ways since the Enlightenment. However, during the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant criticized the doctrine of original sin, but it can be said that by introducing the concept of ‘radical evil,’ he reinterpreted the theological implications of the doctrine of original sin. However, as a philosopher, Immanuel Kant did not undertake any actual theological reconstruction. It was a theologian, however, Albrecht Ritschl, who understood the implications of the doctrine of original sin as the ‘kingdom of sin’ without repeating Kant’s criticisms of the traditional doctrine of original sin, but with Kant’s philosophy.
There are two parts to this project: analysis and judgment. The first part examines a) a traditional understanding of original sin, b) Kant’s critique of original sin and understanding of radical evil, c) Ritschl’s critical acceptance of Kant’s philosophy, and d) Ritschl’s understanding of the kingdom of sin. In the second part, thought experiments will be used to compare each position’s theological coherence, rational-scientific logic, and how it could lead to religious dialogue. In conclusion, I will summarize my research and findings and assess whether they can be useful principles and religious ideas for modern people.
The main goal of this project is to provide modern people who value morality, logic, and peace -especially among religions- with appropriate theological understandings of sin and evil. In this regard, their works, which were more of a complete philosophical or theological reconstruction than a revision of a single doctrine, are still worth considering. |