Sin - innate or learned?

[JJ]

No it doesn't 'necessarily require a teacher'.  You can learn simply by observing the state of the world, by doing things and observing their effect, by making mistakes etc.  But so-called learned behaviour isn't really the case in point here, it's the effect of the world and its imperfections that causes us to become what we are.  We don't learn so much as become.

Sorry, Martin, but I would have to disagree.  Unless something is innate to all of us, such as the ability to use language, or to a specific group of us, such as (and here is a rather poor analogy, I accept) sickle-cell anaemia, any behaviour has to be learned, be that from individuals or community.  If the latter, where is this wonderful society that so many people - from all shades of politics and opinion - tell us we live within.  If from individuals where, ultimately, does the imperfection come from if we are all born without 'imperfection'?

You're not reading what JJ writes are you Andy?  She mentioned a whole load of things that cause imperfection, only some of which are human-caused.  She mentioned famine, cold, fear of being killed by a wild animal, disease, tsunamis, terror, pain, toothache. How is it that you failed to spot what she wrote?

I read that perfectly well, Martin - but still find it hard to understand how these things occur in what you and others have tried many times to tell me is a 'perfect' situation.  Where, for instance, does the fear of being killed by a wild animal come from if not from being told to fear by an adult or older sibling?  After all, if you look at the animal world, young have to be instructed in some way - be it through mimicked behaviour or by physical admonition - to avoid being left unattended or alone.  Remember that, from a purely evolutionary perspective, humans are (at least at the moment) the ultimate 'wild animal', especially when we increasingly kill for the sake of killing, rather than for food alone.

... the aim of morality should be about the well being of the individual not just the patriarchal notions of for the good of mankind ...

Why does 'for the good of humanity have to be patriarchal, ecu?  Even matriarchal societies hold to the principle.

... but seems to me the crux of the argument is that silly manmade issue of sin from a religiosity perspective that lacks substance in the real world but keeps the legal spiritual lawyers happy.....

if it is a manmade issue, ecu, why was it the first thing that Jesus dealt with in so many of the miracles, etc.?

hi Andy thanks... but why would one want to believe in a presupposition?

i mean who decides what is sin and what is not sin?  what is this notion of right and wrong ? where is that coming from ?

Well, if you are a person of faith, it is normal to believe that that decision is made by the deity you belief in/follow.  One will sometimes then challenge others on their behaviour when you believe that behaviour doesn't match up with what 'God' says is acceptable.  For others (and some 'of faith' as well) believe that a country's laws outline what is and what isn't 'sin'.  Often, the two benchmarks match - as in the case of, say, murder or theft; sometimes, as in the case of, say, abortion or killing whilst defending oneself, there can be an indefinable but obvious mismatch; occasionally, a 'religious' or 'secular' (for want of a better pair of terms) law is superseded by something that strengthens the original law (such as Jesus' comments about murder and adultery in Matthew 5).

what does Jesus say about innate or learned stuff then... ?
some passages do come to my mind

Sometimes, Jesus points out that a situation is not because of the sins of a person's parents or ancestors; at other times he denounces certain places for not repenting; at yet other times, he talks about 'un-cleanliness' coming, not from stuff that goes into a person but from within ('from out of his mouth' - Matthew 15).

I think the error consists of thinking that behaviour has to be learned from someone else.  I learnt that if I suckled I felt satisfied, I learnt that if I was hungry I was in pain.  Nobody taught me that.

[JJ]

What is the problem here? 

quote AHB
'I read that perfectly well, Martin - but still find it hard to understand how these things occur in what you and others have tried many times to tell me is a 'perfect' situation.  Where, for instance, does the fear of being killed by a wild animal come from if not from being told to fear by an adult or older sibling?'

Babies often cry when they see something strange and new and a bit abrupt like for example a rearing horse - mine did anyway - nobody taught them that fear when they were 3 months old.  But it really upset them and again my son when he was bitten by another nine month old boy on the cheek was so distressed - he'd never encountered such pain before and as Martin said - another example is when he fell on to the radiator and nobody knew why he was crying until we realised what had happened.  These are the sorts of things that affect children's welfare - small things maybe in this case but some children endure awful, awful neglect and their response is one of fear, hurt, pain and chemical affects.

[AndyHB]

I don't believe that you believe this Andy, I think we're seeing the fibbing Andy again (did he ever really go away?)  this time pretending that the argument that people keep on repeating is somehow difficult to believe.  It's bleedin' obvious that some things are not learned from others, but from experiences. When did the first human learn that fire burns you if you touch it?  It couldn't have been from other humans, because they had no experience of fire.  No, it will have been when he/she tried to pick some up!  Then he/she will have cottoned on pretty damn quick!

So glad that you seem to agree with me, Martin.  For all your bluster and abuse, who suggested that getting hurt by fire is a sin?  We aren't here talking, as you know full well, about everyday experience; we're talking about actions that hurt others.  Where did the ability to do such things come from if we are sinless by nature?

JJ mentioned a book by Simon Baron-Cohen earlier.  It is interesting that the 'Product Description' (on Amazon) states that SB-C

... has always wanted to isolate and understand the factors that cause people to treat others as if they were mere objects. In this book he proposes a radical shift, turning the focus away from evil and on to the central factor, empathy. Unlike the concept of evil, he argues, empathy has real explanatory power.

If this is an attempt to do away with the idea of evil, then it is an attempt to do away with a large element of religious thought through the centuries, long pre-dating Judaism, let alone Christianity and Islam.

Probably could be both (sin being poor choices or wrong doing - even though the world 'wrong' can easily be down to interpretation for some things). For example a child might do something wrong without actually realizing its wrong - say the child took a toy from another, just because they wanted it.

Thanks for that, Jan.  It is interesting that you pick up on a point made by Paul in one of his letters; that it is the law that delineates sin - can't remember the exact phraseology - Romans 4:15b; 7:7ff are but two references (and unlike you I have been outside in the garden for most of the afternoon planting and digging [or should that be digging and planting?] and am about to drop off!!)

I'm not sure that anyone doing some thing that they don't know to be wrong can be guilty of sin.  (See Romans ref. above).  Isn't this the background to the idea of age of understanding that exists in many forms of law?

Babies often cry when they see something strange and new and a bit abrupt like for example a rearing horse - mine did anyway - nobody taught them that fear when they were 3 months old.

Remember this being discussed during our Child Development lectures at college, and the tutor pointed out that almost without fail, the baby isn't responding to the new thing itself - but to the parent's own response to it.

These are the sorts of things that affect children's welfare - small things maybe in this case but some children endure awful, awful neglect and their response is one of fear, hurt, pain and chemical affects.

Agreed, JJ, but research also shows that some children respond 'positively' despite all these things, whilst others respond 'negatively'.  At the same time, some children from happy, 'well-balanced' families 'go off the rails', whilst others don't.  To blanket expalin children's welfare in the way you have is to miss out so much of reality.

[JJ]

Simply put, the mention of getting hurt by a fire was referring to experiences causing personal pain that was not taught by parents or society, not that it was a sin.  My contention is that sin is caused by affect.  Affect is a key part of the process of an organism's interaction with stimuli, and hurtful stimuli cause problems in development.  When my son was hurt by a hot radiator or another child biting him - the fright was certainly not caused by me or by him watching me as I was unaware of it until he reacted with distress.  Yes I agree with child psychologists that parental behaviour affects children, things like running away from a bee say, but not all.

Again, I reiterate that I view actions that hurt others are caused by fright, fear, terror, projection and transference engendered in the perpetrator to name a few causes.  In fact it beggars belief that some people think that sin is some sort of special package inside every one of us that is dying to come out unless we control this strange impulse.  Where is the impulse stored?  Where in the genes is sin expressed? What is it made of and what chemical does it contain.  Until there are cogent answers to these questions we are comparing the metaphorical chalk of sin with the psycho-developmental cheese of human behaviour.  Human beings are made up of genes, chemicals, cells, bodily fluids etc. Why does sin have some special sort of licence to exist without a trace of its origin in any atom of the body whereas all the other affects are explained by hormones, instincts, evolution and so on right from conception.

PS as I said before "It's wrong to compare siblings from a family if one turns out bad, no-one can tell the psychic effects of birth and upbringing on an individual, it doesn't mean that the bad person was born bad - biochemical, circumstantial and innate abilities cause every person to turn out different.  One person thrives in a lovely family - another is suffocated by the same family conditions or a very bad experience at school.  Our experiences make us what we are and most people grow quite well, but some are ruined by something another would find a healthy challenge."

[Martin]

Andy, you are deliberately arguing against an argument that nobody is making. That's because you have nothing else to argue with.

Seen it all before Andy. When will you learn to be honest?

Crossposted. 

JJ,

Andy knows that the mention of getting hurt by a fire was referring to experiences of pain. You and I couldn't have been clearer.

[EliB]

... (not least because in my situation I don't know identities of those involved......the guy who attacked me because he was a stranger and the girl who murdered my friend because she was afforded a new id on release......

Can't remember the name of the book I read this in - several years ago - but it seems that one can forgive a nameless/faceless person, in the same way that you and I can - through our political leaders - apologise for the actions of our predecessors (slavery, trade injustice, etc.)

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you that you must or must not do something here - just using your situation as a trigger for debate.

Hi Andy
I'm not doubting for a moment that you can forgive a nameless (sadly neither in my situation are faceless!!!!) person, but the context in which I stated the above was with regard to me not being able to enact revenge - not to forgiving.....I already know that the actions of these 2 people are (IMO!!!) UNforgiveable, but revenge can only be an abstract notion because I don't know anything about them to trace them - not to mention the fact that the time I DID see the guy who attacked me (years later!!) I totally went to pieces and would have been incapable anyway!!!)

ps - I have no problem with you using my situation for debate......but I DO think both people were EVIL  - and because myself and a lot of people were, and continue to be, hurt by their actions (and lives lost) I don't actually care very much whether they are innately evil or they learned it....they are just evil!!

[JJ]

Synchronicity or what?  I had been thinking about the old guy for a while in relation to this thread, and here he is today popping up on Melvyn Bragg's 9am In Our Time programme on Radio 4.

Who am I thinking of?

Pelagius.

[Martin]

A report from the BBC website, which appears to indicate that bad behaviour in later life is influenced by events in early childhood.

[Jan]

A report from the BBC website, which appears to indicate that bad behaviour in later life is influenced by events in early childhood.

Yep - though a baby that cries a lot (for reasons other than colic etc) could have a condition or a chemical imbalance in the brain even which causes the baby to be stressed. Our own brain chemistry can (and does) influence how we behave any time in life.

[Jan]

Synchronicity or what?  I had been thinking about the old guy for a while in relation to this thread, and here he is today popping up on Melvyn Bragg's 9am In Our Time programme on Radio 4.

Who am I thinking of?

Pelagius.

Synchronicity - lol - what can I say

[Martin]

Yep - though a baby that cries a lot (for reasons other than colic etc) could have a condition or a chemical imbalance in the brain even which causes the baby to be stressed. Our own brain chemistry can (and does) influence how we behave any time in life.

Quite so.  But this, coupled with other research, starts to build up a picture of human behaviour which doesn't revolve around 'choices to disobey God' or 'our own deliberate fault'  but much more around the random chances which formed our genes, or the luck (or lack of it) of our environment and nurture.  As JJ keeps saying, the human condition is not a product of 'original sin' -  All of us born pre-infected with sin, brought about by 'the first sin'. 

It is wrong, and potentially damaging, to see a baby as 'inately sinful' someone who is already 'against God' before the baby has any concept of right or wrong.  Rather, the human condition is the product of a series of chances and a cause-and-effect process in an imperfect world where circumstances beyond our control cause imperfect development.  Children should not be seen as instruments of some dark, chaotic force, in need of measures and interventions, to conform their corrupt minds to 'right-thinking', but rather should be known as creatures in whom Love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, empathy, kindness and generosity are inbuilt characteristics and will naturally develop given the right conditions.  How we see children, positive or negative, makes a huge difference to how we treat them.

[Jan]

Yep - though a baby that cries a lot (for reasons other than colic etc) could have a condition or a chemical imbalance in the brain even which causes the baby to be stressed. Our own brain chemistry can (and does) influence how we behave any time in life.

Quite so.  But this, coupled with other research, starts to build up a picture of human behaviour which doesn't revolve around 'choices to disobey God' or 'our own deliberate fault'  but much more around the random chances which formed our genes, or the luck (or lack of it) of our environment and nurture.  As JJ keeps saying, the human condition is not a product of 'original sin' -  All of us born pre-infected with sin, brought about by 'the first sin'. 

It is wrong, and potentially damaging, to see a baby as 'inately sinful' someone who is already 'against God' before the baby has any concept of right or wrong.  Rather, the human condition is the product of a series of chances and a cause-and-effect process in an imperfect world where circumstances beyond our control cause imperfect development.  Children should not be seen as instruments of some dark, chaotic force, in need of measures and interventions, to conform their corrupt minds to 'right-thinking', but rather should be known as creatures in whom Love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, empathy, kindness and generosity are inbuilt characteristics and will naturally develop given the right conditions.  How we see children, positive or negative, makes a huge difference to how we treat them.

Yes

'Sin'/Poor choices/wrong doing can indeed be the result of a lot of different factors for different people - I don't think that any of us could put it down to an either or thing really. All of us have the potential within us to do good (or bad) - and we are all children in one sense (no matter what our physical age). Another thing is to turn your last sentence round a little bit to say  that 'how we treat others can make a difference to how they behave towards/with us'

[AndyHB]

Simply put, the mention of getting hurt by a fire was referring to experiences causing personal pain that was not taught by parents or society, not that it was a sin.  My contention is that sin is caused by affect.

Sorry for biting your head off like that JJ; I was exhausted - and therefore less than in control - when I responded to you.

I think my concern is that so far the only examples given have been of what are natural, innate defence mechanisms.  For instance, as far as I am aware, being afraid isn't actually a sin, nor is suffering pain - they aren't even malfunctions of the the bodily system.  In almost all cases I can think of, there are choices of reaction. 

Again, I reiterate that I view actions that hurt others are caused by fright, fear, terror, projection and transference engendered in the perpetrator to name a few causes.  In fact it beggars belief that some people think that sin is some sort of special package inside every one of us that is dying to come out unless we control this strange impulse.  Where is the impulse stored?  Where in the genes is sin expressed? What is it made of and what chemical does it contain.  Until there are cogent answers to these questions we are comparing the metaphorical chalk of sin with the psycho-developmental cheese of human behaviour.  Human beings are made up of genes, chemicals, cells, bodily fluids etc. Why does sin have some special sort of licence to exist without a trace of its origin in any atom of the body whereas all the other affects are explained by hormones, instincts, evolution and so on right from conception.

You could quite equally ask where impulses such as love, hate, pain, etc. are 'stored', JJ.  Where do they appear in one's genes?  Are there traces of them in any of the atoms of the body?  I'm afraid that until you can give cogent answers to those questions, what you have written above is just as valid a comment about theses impulses that we happily acknowledge.

PS as I said before "It's wrong to compare siblings from a family if one turns out bad, no-one can tell the psychic effects of birth and upbringing on an individual, it doesn't mean that the bad person was born bad - biochemical, circumstantial and innate abilities cause every person to turn out different.  One person thrives in a lovely family - another is suffocated by the same family conditions or a very bad experience at school.  Our experiences make us what we are and most people grow quite well, but some are ruined by something another would find a healthy challenge."

Are you suggesting that there is something in our genes that control this?  If so, are you suggesting that - potentially - everyone who shares genes could be made to react in exactly the same way to the same stimuli?

[AndyHB]

Andy, you are deliberately arguing against an argument that nobody is making. That's because you have nothing else to argue with.

Seen it all before Andy. When will you learn to be honest?

Crossposted. 

JJ,

Andy knows that the mention of getting hurt by a fire was referring to experiences of pain. You and I couldn't have been clearer.

Martin, both you and JJ know that we were discussing the issue of sin/wrongdoing, and its source.  Getting hurt by fire - unless self-inflicted when it could be regarded as wrongdoing - isn't really in that context.  As a result, I think the introduction of such issues are outside the remit of the discussion at hand.

As for honesty, Martin, ...

[JJ]

Aw sorry that you were tired and I know typing on a forum can often be straight from the hip!

I think what I have been saying over several different threads now is that pain causes people to react badly and the more the pain inflicted on them by outside or internal forces the more they are likely to 'sin' as their behaviour becomes stunted.  That is the connection.  For example soldiers suffering from PTSD can be violent and horrible to others.  I have mentioned that sort of thing many times I think.  I see damaged people every day who can be quite abusive and that abuse may be traced to terrible abuse when they were children.  So that is the connection with sin.

Love and attachment are stored in the amygdala and hippocampus and are released by the flooding of the hormone oxytocin.  (As I have pointed out several times before over the months!) People with behavioural problems have small amygdalas - and a lack of oxytocin and too much cortisol, and there is evidence to show that amygdalas are shrunk by bad treatment as a child.  So my contention in this argument is that benign conditions provide for a 'sinless' human being - but conditions are never benign, once the baby is out of the womb.  Something is bound to colour the brain once the growing baby has to contend with various stimuli, good and bad.  And the consequent commitment of sins start to happen.  And the person is deemed imperfect, as we all are.   

No I am not suggesting just genes particularly - other things relating to the mind and body can also make us all different - I know a set of triplets here very well and the three of them look identical but their behaviour and abilities have developed in three different ways. 

What I said was 'PS as I said before "It's wrong to compare siblings from a family if one turns out bad, no-one can tell the psychic effects of birth and upbringing on an individual, it doesn't mean that the bad person was born bad - biochemical, circumstantial and innate abilities cause every person to turn out different.  One person thrives in a lovely family - another is suffocated by the same family conditions or a very bad experience at school.  Our experiences make us what we are and most people grow quite well, but some are ruined by something another would find a healthy challenge."'  As well as our genes.