Ma`rifat Falsafi

In the Middle Ages, Christianity defended the concept of “innate (original) sin” by appealing to the Old Testament. The doctrine of “innate sin” contained an internal contradiction, and the Church’s attempt to resolve this problem by resorting to the theory of “universals” failed. For this reason, in modern anthropology, the concept of “innate sin” was abandoned. Nevertheless, within the framework of “belief in the inherent human evil,” this doctrine was reconstructed in a significant part of the anthropological foundations of ethics, psychoanalysis, and the philosophy of history, continuing its existence under a scientific or philosophical label. Even the growing skepticism and distrust towards human reason, concerns about human access to technology, and efforts to limit human access to nature are related to the doctrine of “innate sin.” This paper argues that the belief in inherent human evil, like the concept of “innate sin,” is also contradictory and cannot be proven by scientific or rational methods. Even psychoanalysis, through its empirical or rational methods, cannot demonstrate inherent human evil, and when it resorts to the unconscious, it transforms into an irrefutable and unscientific viewpoint. The historical method is also trapped by the “fallacy of the appearance of evil,” and from the focus of history on war and bloodshed, it cannot be concluded that evil is inherent in humans or that it predominates.