{"id":1498,"date":"2010-11-12T08:49:54","date_gmt":"2010-11-12T15:49:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgdarkly.com\/blog\/?p=1498"},"modified":"2010-11-12T08:49:54","modified_gmt":"2010-11-12T15:49:54","slug":"what-is-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2010\/11\/12\/what-is-sin\/","title":{"rendered":"What is Sin?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good post by RJS on Jesus Creed<\/a>, which incorporates some thoughts of mine:<\/p>\n

This post is part 7 of a series The Fall and Sin After Darwin<\/em>. We\u2019ve been looking at the essays in a book Theology After Darwin<\/a><\/strong><\/em> centered around a simple question: What are the implications for Christian theology if Darwin was right<\/em><\/strong>? In conjunction with this we are also looking at three articles in the recent theme issue of the ASA Journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (v. 62 no. 3 2010) Reading Genesis: The Historicity of Adam and Eve, Genomics, and Evolutionary Science<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>In the last post in this series, Did God Create Us Sinful<\/a>?<\/strong><\/em>, we looked at the question of theodicy \u2013 wrestling with the concept God\u2019s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil and the questions human nature and human impulses. The nature and understanding of sin is a big piece of thie discussion. In the course of the discussion I quoted from Dr. Schneider\u2019s article summarizing some of the reasons for the conflict between evolution, common descent, and the traditional view of sin as he sees the issues interacting.<\/p>\n

The main point is that recent phylogenetic or cladistic analysis convinces many genetic experts that these detailed similarities of self-serving behaviors can hardly be coincidental\u2014they look like a genetic legacy that has been passed on from one species to the next, including to our own. Domning endorses this as, by far, the best explanation: \u201cThe selfish acts of humans are homologous; that is, similar because derived from a common source.\u201d And in any event (so we add, lest one resist that explanation), the traits are genetically common to every individual in all animal species. As members of a species, we are programmed, as it were, or powerfully disposed, to engage in our own genetic self-interest and advantage. We need not endorse the theory of common ancestry in order to respect the force of all this evidence and to begin pondering its implications for theology. (p. 202)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Natural biological response does not need to be limited to the negative of course. Virtue can also be argued to be merely natural biological response. Schneider discusses, not only sin, but also altruism and behavior for the communal good rather than the individual good.\u00a0 He continues after the quote I have above:<\/p>\n

It should be noted that geneticists observe, too, that we also share with animals \u201cvirtuous\u201d traits involving love, genuine sympathy, and care. If this is selfishness, it proves that selfishness is the source of not only vice, but also virtue. If animals engage in genuinely unselfish acts-disinterested in the general survival of their own germinal DNA\u2014then that is extremely interesting, to be sure. It is nevertheless clear that many animal \u201cvirtues\u201d show self interest in a manner that benefits other nonmembers of the species, too. Domning calls this behavior \u201camoral selfishness.\u201d As for deliberative human altruism (if there really is such a thing), it requires, writes Domning, \u201can intellect and will of a caliber that does not and cannot exist in the simplest life forms.\u201d The clear implication of the science is that, at the dawn of human consciousness and its moral awareness and capacities for such virtue, altruism was the challenge for humanity in the future, not the original primal condition of human beings in the past. (p. 202)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Recent observations of chimpanzee gangs<\/a> and food sharing by bonobos<\/a> are used by some to bolster the argument. Human behavior is simply deterministic and natural. This idea has serious consequences for Christian theology.\u00a0 Much of Schneider\u2019s article is dead-on, insightful, and worth serious consideration. But his emphasis on sin and a sinful nature as equated with \u201cnatural\u201d biological urges and tendencies is something of a problem.\u00a0 It strikes me that we have here a serious misunderstanding of sin \u2013 and of the relationship between natural biological response and sin. We can not understand Adam, Paul, or the Christian faith if we cannot get a handle on the nature of sin. So I put up the question for consideration:<\/p>\n

What is the relationship between sin and natural biological response?
\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0I was planning to post on this topic \u2013 but was beaten to the punch in the comment section of the last post. David Opderbeck made the key point early in the comment stream (#16) \u2013 and I agree with him here.<\/p>\n

Schneider makes some excellent points and his pointing towards Job on the theodicy question is exactly right.<\/p>\n

However, he is fundamentally and I think dangerously mistaken about the reduction of \u201csin\u201d to biology.<\/p>\n

\u201cSin\u201d is not merely a natural inclination, and \u201cselfishness,\u201d or better, \u201cself-regard,\u201d is not in itself sin.<\/p>\n

When my dog takes food off the kitchen table, she is being a \u201cbad dog,\u201d but that is not \u201csin.\u201d She\u2019s just doing what dogs do. If I were to steal food from my neighbor\u2019s table, that would be \u201csin,\u201d even though I\u2019m inclined by my \u201cselfish\u201d instincts to hoard food. Why is it \u201csin\u201d for me and not my dog? Because I possess a capacity of \u201cwill\u201d or \u201cagency\u201d or, if you will, \u201csoul,\u201d that my dog does not possess.<\/p>\n

In fact, Augustine noted this distinction well before the challenge of biological evolution. It was the \u201csoul\u201d that, for Augustine, allowed human beings to regulate their impulses in ways animals cannot. This is very important: Augustine and the other Fathers wrestled with this problem of \u201cnatural\u201d inclinations, free will, and moral culpability long before evolutionary biology.<\/em> Contra Schneider, this is NOT a new problem at all, and there are rich resources in the tradition for thinking about it.<\/p>\n

The only way in which it could be a new problem is if hard-core sociobiology is right: that is, if human beings have no free will or agency at all \u2014 if all our actions could be traced entirely to \u201chard wired\u201d evolutionary causes. Very few scientists actually think this is true. In any event, I doubt it\u2019s ultimately a \u201cscientific\u201d question rather than a \u201cmetaphysical\u201d one.<\/p>\n

Christian theology asserts that human beings possess agency such that we are morally accountable for our actions. Christian theology also asserts that God is not the author of evil. IMHO, these are fundamental truths that cannot, and need not, be compromised.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Later \u2013 as I was pondering this post and constructing my argument David put up comment in response to the argument that the continuity between animal and human behavior might undermine the concept of sin \u2013 and especially Original Sin.\u00a0 It comes down, not to inherited response and biological structures, but to the intrinsic reality of free-will and human agency. (Comment 90<\/a>)<\/p>\n

As to \u201ccontinuity,\u201d I agree with you, we\u2019ve inherited from our forebears all of the stuff from which our minds emerge. These include the mental structures that support culture making and morality. They also include the mental structures that support behaviors we may deem \u201cimmoral\u201d.<\/p>\n

I reject any view, however, that reduces what it means to be \u201chuman\u201d merely to those inherited structures. I reject strong versions of neurobiological determinism. I believe human beings possess genuine agency. I believe the human mind, with its apparently unique capacities for agency, is an emergent phenomena that exerts downward causality, and therefore that human agency isn\u2019t reducible to biology.<\/p>\n

I also reject any view that reduces what it means to be \u201chuman\u201d even to biology plus the emergent phenomena of mind. Humans are \u201cspiritual\u201d and \u201csoulish\u201d in ways that other creatures apparently are not. The \u201cmind\u201d and the \u201csoul\u201d are not exactly the same thing. This is a datum, I believe, of revelation, but it also accords with the experience of self-consciousness and God-consciousness.<\/p>\n

Finally, I reject any view in which these various aspects of what it means to be \u201chuman\u201d \u2014 (1) our biological and neurobiological and sociobiological inheritance, (2) our capacity for true agency through the downward causality exercised by the emergent phenomena of \u201cmind\u201d, and (3) our spiritual and soulish nature \u2014 are conceived of as divisible. Sort of like the Trinity, the layers of our being interpenetrate and coinhere with each other. We are not dualities or trialities \u2014 \u201cbody and soul\u201d or \u201cbody, mind and soul\u201d. We are integrated creatures though our ontology involves multiple layers.<\/p>\n

As to \u201csin,\u201d that begins not in layer (1), but rather is a product of the willful misuse of human capacities at layers (3) and (2) \u2014 and thereby it affects layer (1) (e.g., in the stress and anxiety that are produced when we intentionally harm others and break relationships). Certainly the structures of layer (1) make \u201csin\u201d possible, but they do not dictate that \u201csin\u201d must<\/em> happen. A bodily behavior is only \u201csin\u201d when the \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cmind\u201d have willfully directed the person to improper ends.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Human agency and free-will, creative, abstract, aesthetic thought.<\/em><\/strong> These are really the key ideas. Human beings can respond, create, and imagine \u2013 and the results of these processes have a reality that extends beyond the merely chemical, physical, and biological.\u00a0 There is also evidence that human response can intentionally influence the biological ability for response. This came up when I posted last year on an article on the Science of Sin (part 1<\/a>, part 2<\/a>,). While it is clear that there is an undeniable connection between human response and natural impulse there is also evidence for an element of control or feedback in human response, albeit imperfect. One of the researchers quoted in the popular level article commented regarding the response in the brain \u201cthis network provides us with the evolutionarily unprecedented ability to control our own neural processing \u2013 a feat achieved by no other creature.\u201d\u00a0 There is an element of our very being, an element consistent with the idea of humans created in the image of God that is not merely reducible to animal instincts and biological encoding.\u00a0 We can (in theory) choose and we can (in theory) change. This is true of the impulse for altruism as well as for the impulse for envy and self-aggrandizement.<\/p>\n

Sin then \u2013 and the universal reality of sin \u2013 relates to an abuse and perversion of this capacity for agency. I posted last May\u00a0on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS 107, 4499, 2010<\/a>) that dealt with the materialist argument against free will with suggestions for the criminal justice system (Is Free Will Anti-Science?<\/a>).\u00a0 Christian understanding of reality runs counter to this purely materialist view of action and responsibility. Agency, not just in Adam but in all of us, is a key part of the puzzle. The incarnation and the Christ-centered gospel is not about a return to an \u201cnatural-urge-free\u201d existence, but about the ability to stay in proper relationship with God, to make proper choices, and the consequences for making improper choices. The most significant of these choices are relational \u2013 first and foremost relationship with God, and then with each other in community extending to the world in which we\u2019ve been placed and in the context of the mission we\u2019ve been given.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Good post by RJS on Jesus Creed, which incorporates some thoughts of mine: This post is part 7 of a series The Fall and Sin After Darwin. We\u2019ve been looking at the essays in a book Theology After Darwin centered around a simple question: What are the implications for Christian theology if Darwin was right? […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[50,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science-and-religion","category-theology"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-oa","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1498","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}