Sin - innate or learned?

[JJ]

But the world isn't perfect Andy.  That's the whole point. 

So, JJ, if humans are all born sinless, which I understand to be your POV, where does the imperfection come from?  Despite all the Baron-Cohenesque attempts to explain the occurrence of evil in some way other than the original sin concept, no-one has managed to adequately explain where evil comes from.

Going round and round and round here aren't we?  I have already said - was it on another thread - I can't remember now! - things have affected humans as they evolve - famine, cold, fear of being killed by a wild animal, disease, tsunamis, terror, pain, toothache - all these things affect a growing child and produce strange responses in the psyche the more the terror - the more difficult it is to grow up healthy and that's where the rot sets in.  The sin in a child is from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child.  There are too many of us for this problem to go away.  E.g. While some British attempt at bringing up children in a kinder way might all the rage for a while - some children in another country are spoilt by some other theory and so it goes round and round. It's a Forth Bridge type task isn't it?

[AndyHB]

Going round and round and round here aren't we?   ...  The sin in a child is from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child. 

Going round and round ... yes, but that's the nature of your argument.

If, as you say, the sin of a child who is born sinless is

from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child

how did the fathers (and mothers, incidentally) become 'sinful'?  You can run this cycle back and back as far as you want, but ultimately you have to be able to answer how that sin actually came to be present in what must, if your argument is correct have started out as a 'sinless' world.

[EliB]

Two questions, Eli.  Isn't revenge both natural but inherently evil in itself?  Secondly, do 2 wrongs make a right?

There was an interesting discussion on Nicky Campbell's 'Your Call' last week where this was the underlying topic.  Does a harbouring of feelings of revenge (also referred on the programme as a refusal to forgive - albeit not forget) actually do damage to the harbourer?  Is there not a danger that it acts as a canker inside slowly poisoning all aspects of one's life?

Andy, two wrongs don't make a right, no, but it's the only kind of "justice" that makes sense in certain circumstances, because we don't have such a system....that and it's the only kind of justice folk as evil as that understand!!!  And no, I don't think that revenge is, in itself evil!! I think it's natural!! And it's not against completely innocent people!!!!!!!
I also don't think feelings of revenge are the same as refusal to forgive....one is an active feeling, which for most of us could never happen (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......that and all the other help she needed(!!) and the other an inability to feel a certain way (ie forgive)
And yes, probably the only person to suffer in feelings of hatred is the one feeling the hate -  that does tend to be the way of it - but the logic of that does NOT make it a given that it's possible to say "ok then" and forgive - I still maintain that some things ARE just unforgiveable!!

[Martin]

If something is a learned behaviour, it necessarily requires a teacher, JJ.  I appreciate that that teaching may not be conscious or active, but passive teaching is just as bad.  For instance, if I as a parent, fail to criticise racist behaviour or cruelty to animals in front of my children, I am - effectively - condoning this kind of action, thus teaching them that its OK.

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.

[Martin]

If, as you say, the sin of a child who is born sinless is

from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child

how did the fathers (and mothers, incidentally) become 'sinful'?  You can run this cycle back and back as far as you want, but ultimately you have to be able to answer how that sin actually came to be present in what must, if your argument is correct have started out as a 'sinless' world.

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?

[JJ]

Thank you Martin.  It's no good use just wildly throwing words back at me Andy.  By round and round I mean that I keep re stating my reasons for saying that sin is not innate. Again - I say that pain and imperfect conditions cause the organism to modify its behaviour to avoid more pain right from day one.   One can see that in the animal kingdom every day: slap a wasp and it stings you to stop you hurting them - it's not a sin, just a reaction.

Even modern day bullies are deemed to be psychologically transferring their own pain on to others by means of projection and transference.  They feel so bad about themselves that they have to make someone else hurt to get rid of their own feelings.  They can't express them very well so they get someone else to do that for them.  One can see it happening in marriages.  The man is angry about an issue at work but does not express it very well at work because of fear of the boss so brings it home and is angry with the wife.   So the woman cries because she is hurt by him.  And is regarded as soppy and blamed for being tearful.  But what is happening is that the woman's tears express the man's anger for him. Another woman doesn't cry - so the man's feelings don't get expression and he has to deal with it and face it himself.   Basic psychology theory.   Module 2 Year 2.

It's not enough to call sin innate without looking at what sin is.  What is it?

[JJ]

Listened to this on the way to work on Monday - had to stop listening when I arrived at 9.15, but listening to it again now.
Well worth a listen as they touch on this topic.

Start the Week on Radio 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr



Aside: Loved it when one of the contributors mentioned women in burkas:  Women who live their lives in a cloth bag under coercion.


SAM HARRIS
Science can tell us how people ought to behave and address moral questions, according to the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris. In his book The Moral Landscape, he argues that ?Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.?

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is published by Bantam Press.

[ecuworrier]

But the world isn't perfect Andy.  That's the whole point.  So many children are abused and consequently their behaviour is affected by it - not taught by anyone.  And that is from a child development perspective.  You now change the goal posts a little as earlier on you said that for children to learn - someone must be teaching them.  I questioned that and you have now changed to saying that they must be learning to do something wrong.  They are habituating their response and that might be wrong, and that might be learnt behaviour - but there is no-one teaching them that.  That is what I am asserting.


There's an interesting fact about the language thing - for the first 9 months any child is sensitive to the accent it hears around it - children who are introduced to a new language later than 9 months quite often cannot distinguish subtle differences of pronunciation whereas babies who have been around that language from birth can tell the difference.  And often in Wales it's impossible for non Welsh speakers to pronounce ll as natives do.  It's not innate but heard from the womb. 

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.

GOOD POST!

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[ecuworrier]

Going round and round and round here aren't we?   ...  The sin in a child is from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child. 

Going round and round ... yes, but that's the nature of your argument.

If, as you say, the sin of a child who is born sinless is

from imperfection of the sins of the fathers causing mistakes and unwitting damage to the child

how did the fathers (and mothers, incidentally) become 'sinful'?  You can run this cycle back and back as far as you want, but ultimately you have to be able to answer how that sin actually came to be present in what must, if your argument is correct have started out as a 'sinless' world.

i don't know about...  'the nature of your argument' sounds a bit weird and impersonal to the context of living flesh breathing and having consciousness and exploring that not just for love of self but for the love of others

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.....  of GOD said something then it is not of the nature we cling onto.. and it is not of our nature to see things with a religious spirit of cveiled threat and secret desires of condemnation and self condemnation have a feeling that Freud may have been onto something somewhere within the judeochristian/jewish culture he grew up in ....but it was not what he said it was


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[ecuworrier]

Listened to this on the way to work on Monday - had to stop listening when I arrived at 9.15, but listening to it again now.
Well worth a listen as they touch on this topic.

Start the Week on Radio 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr

i heard this throughly recommend the first part right up to entry by the chrisitan of the week...  (though she did make one or two helpful points or persepctives somewhere) i guess i was listening to stuff like..... the aim of morality should be about the well being of the individual not just the patriarchal notions of for the good of mankind.... the guy was happy to tar all patriarchal religions with the same brush (and no doubt one or two matriarchies would come under that brush too) the book and practise of law to keep things ..well a certain way.. i liked that sounded almost Christlike or what Christlike should sound like

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[ecuworrier]

Sin - innate or learned?

i noticed that the originator of this line was going off on one on post 1 whilst me i got waylaid on the title .....  thinking quite plainly: yer wot!?

Quite simple, ecu.  Innate means part of our make-up, which is what those who believe in 'original sin' or the fall of humanity in the way outlined in the story of the Garden of Eden would argue, or is evil something that a chilkd has no knowledge of when born but learns through their early life - suggesting that someone is necessarily teaching them to do wrong (which most parents would argue isn't them).

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 ?

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


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

... (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.

[AndyHB]

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).

[Martin]

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'?

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!

[Jan]

'Sin' - innate or learned?

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. Then the child may be told it is wrong and to give the toy back if the action has been seen by an adult (child may still take another childs toy even when knowing it is wrong) or if the action is not seen then the child might run off with the toy. The both children might then believe it is fine to take from another - if they have not been shown otherwise. Do we know innately if we do something 'wrong' or 'sinful' -  maybe sometimes we do - but not all the time. Maybe we don't learn the lessons straight away - so maybe we get them again and again with our interactions with others?

Hope that makes some sense - I have been working in front of the computer for far too long today - I really should be outside suffering with sunburning, hayfever & hornets