A reflection on sin has much to offer critical psychology and can provide interesting interdisciplinary bridges between psychology, religious studies, and philosophy on this topic. In spite of the many interpretations and assumptions about what sin really is, or if it is, it is rare indeed to see sin as a topic of discussion very much anymore in academic circles, and this discussion is particularly absent in the field of psychology – except when pointing out sin as an archaic word used to describe psychopathology. The movement away from discussions of sin was noted by Karl Menninger (1978) in his now well-known book, Whatever became of sin?, when he argued that the slow dismissal of sin as a topic of concern and reflection has led consequentially to multiple destructive troubles in society. Paul Ricouer’ s (1986) foundational study of evil in his book, The Symbolism of Evil, takes up the discussion of sin as historically and symbolically being seen as forms of tainting....
- Heidegger, M. (2008). Ontology – The hermeneutics of facticity (J. Van Buren, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Kierkegaard, S. (1846/1941). Concluding unscientific postscript (D. Swenson & W. Lowrie, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- McKeon, R., (Ed.). (1941). The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 1455–1487; I. Bywater, Trans.). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
- Menninger, K. (1978). Whatever became of sin? New York, NY: Bantam.Google Scholar
- Ricouer, P. (1986). The symbolism of evil. New York, NY: Beacon.Google Scholar
- Szasz, T. (1974). The second sin. London, England: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.Google Scholar
- Szasz, T. (1988). The myth of psychotherapy: Mental healing as religion, rhetoric, and repression. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar