Has evolution wired us for sin?

[Frank Robert]

The Neuroscience of the Seven Deadly Sins -​

Brain researchers are finding the sources of our nastiest temptations.​

​

Why does being bad feel so good?​

​

The most enjoyable sins engage the brain’s reward circuitry, including evolutionarily ancient regions such as the nucleus accumbens and hypothalamus; located deep in the brain, they provide us such fundamental feelings as pain, pleasure, reward, and punishment. More disagreeable forms of sin such as wrath and envy enlist the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. This area, buried in the front of the brain, is often called the brain’s conflict detector, coming online when you are confronted with contradictory information or even simply when you feel pain. The more social sins (pride, envy, lust, wrath) recruit the medial prefrontal cortex. Found just behind the forehead, this region helps shape the awareness of self.​

​

It might be too strong to claim that evolution has wired us for sin, but excessive indulgence in lust or greed could certainly put you ahead of your competitors. “Many of these sins you could think of as virtues taken to the extreme,” says Adam Safron, a research consultant at Northwestern University whose neuroimaging studies focus on sexual behavior. “From the perspective of natural selection, you want the organism to eat, to procreate, so you make them rewarding. But there’s a potential for that process to go beyond the bounds.”​

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Has evolution wired us for sin?

No.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Proverbs 9:17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

We have a Sin Nature that resides in our flesh, and is passed on by the seed of the father.

In short, it's hereditary and has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In short, it's hereditary and has nothing to do with evolution.

Non-sequitur - Inheritance is at the core of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Non-sequitur - Inheritance is at the core of evolution.

Yes -- we inherited our Sin Nature from Adam.

That's why Jesus was born of a virgin.

Not a "young lady," that academia teaches.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes -- we inherited our Sin Nature from Adam.

That's why Jesus was born of a virgin.

Not a "young lady," that academia teaches.

The gospels are pretty clear ( at least the two that tell the story) that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. I don't know of any "academic" argument against that reading of the Greek text of the NT.

Where scholars differ (and Jews as well) would disagree with the "virgin" interpretation is the word used in the *prophecy* Matthew extracts from the OT that he claims Jesus fulfills (being born of a virgin). It is that word in the original OT text that Matthew quotes that readers of the Hebrew text would read not as virgin.

 

[driewerf]

The Neuroscience of the Seven Deadly Sins -​

​

No.
There is no sin.

 

[Frank Robert]

No.
There is no sin.

Sin is defined as an offense against God for believers. Even so, what is refereed to as the deadly sins of Lust, Gluttony, Greed, etc. do exist.

 

[driewerf]

Sin is defined as an offense against God for believers. Even so, what is refereed to as the deadly sins of Lust, Gluttony, Greed, etc. do exist.

Since there is no god, there arent sins.
There are crimes (i.e; acts against the law of the country you're in), there are evil deeds. And some of the sins are even just harmless fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since there is no god, there aren't sins.

And you're willing to wager your future on that?

 

[Frank Robert]

Since there is no god, there arent sins.
There are crimes (i.e; acts against the law of the country you're in), there are evil deeds. And some of the sins are even just harmless fun.

It doesn't matter if. The OP is about behaviors that do exist, sin is simply used as an analogy.

 

[driewerf]

And you're willing to wager your future on that?

I do.
Daily.

 

[Frank Robert]

And you're willing to wager your future on that?

That is Pascal's wager. The problem with the wager is that there are thousands of religions and denominations. If you choose the wrong religion or denomination you will miss out on the rewards of another religion.

 

[Estrid]

That is Pascal's wager. The problem with the wager is that there are thousands of religions and denominations. If you choose the wrong religion or denomination you will miss out on the rewards of another religion.

What if this

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

Really is the penalty for my dreadful
flaunting of my uncovered hair in public?

 

[Frank Robert]

What if this

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

Really is the penalty for my dreadful
flaunting of my uncovered hair in public?

This is a good example why so many people have problems with the Abrahamic religions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is Pascal's wager. The problem with the wager is that there are thousands of religions and denominations. If you choose the wrong religion or denomination you will miss out on the rewards of another religion.

Actually, that's not quite right. If we're going to take Pascal's Wager into consideration, and since Pascal intended for it to accompany the rest of the Pensees as a part of an overall context, then we have to keep this in mind. And as such, this consideration disembowels the typical "Outsider Test for Faith."

This doesn't mean that Pascal's Wager is some surely logical construct that isn't faulty in any way, but still, I just thought I'd mention it 'cuz I know no one else on this entire forum will.

 

[Frank Robert]

Actually, that's not quite right. If we're going to take Pascal's Wager into consideration, and since Pascal intended for it to accompany the rest of the Pensees as a part of an overall context, then we have to keep this in mind. And as such, this consideration disembowels the typical "Outsider Test for Faith."

This doesn't mean that Pascal's Wager is some surely logical construct that isn't faulty in any way, but still, I just thought I'd mention it 'cuz I know no one else on this entire forum will.

It's good to know the that Pascal's intentions were for his own faith or at least those who studied the Pensees.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's good to know the that Pascal's intentions were for his own faith or at least those who studied the Pensees.

Yes, his Pensees was mainly aimed at those who felt they'd like to believe in the Christian faith but had trouble doing so. In the process, he also swatted away and briefly criticized the other religions.