Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Gen. 2:7-3:6, God Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey.

God was omnipotent, and God must have known the properties and tolerances of everything he created, just like a baker and just like an engineer.

If he was omniscient, then he had foreknowledge and if he didn't have foreknowledge (for whatever reason), he could have made reliable predictions based on his intimate knowledge of his creation and its properties and tolerances. To refute this would necessitate showing why God cannot be expected to have the same capabilities as any other Engineer or Baker.

Stipulating that the story of the Fall of Man is true in some sense, God was an expert in how to make Adam. He understood Adam intimately.

God made Adam as a Man in Gods image, whatever that means. Since god made Adam as a man, Adam necessarily possessed all the qualities that qualify Adam to be classified as a man. From the story, we can see that Adam had desire, cognitive biases (such as trusting someone he liked) but he didn't posses the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So from Adams perspective all options were more or less equal. These choices he made from the options and characteristics that he possessed guaranteed certain outcomes were more likely than others.


6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


Since Adam had no family, no history, no education, no culture, no frame of reference with which to view the world, he had to make decisions based on information he picked up from the time of his inception or from what God instilled in him at creation. Since God made him without the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his options would be determined by that frame of reference. If God made him without language, his options would be limited accordingly. If he made him without an opposable thumb his options would be limited accordingly. Based on Adams properties, Adam could be expected to behave in certain ways. For example, we don't expect Adam walked on all fours even though he could have. We expect and assume he walked upright because of his body structure. He, like us, had parameters that made it more comfortable to walk upright than on his hands and knees. He, like us, had desires that made it more likely that had the ability to place value on things and have a hierarchy of preferences. In fact, he did not choose a helper. While its strange that God did not make woman when he made the animals once Adam gave up trying to choose, God made Eve in such a way that it was likely that Adam was going to accept her as a his helpmate. If God had made woman when he made the animals, Adam could have avoided wasting time looking for a suitable helper from the animals.

2:20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.


If certain conditions are met, we can reasonably expect a certain outcome.

An example from close to home. My grandmother was an expert about what she cooked. When my grandmother used to make biscuits, she used only a certain type of flower, and she added Crisco and other ingredients to make the best biscuits ever. When I asked her for the recipe she said it was in her head, and when i asked her to dictate it to me is was full of dashes and pinches of this and that. She did that with everything and she was a great cook. She knew exactly how each ingredient would affect the outcome of the texture, taste, consistency etc. I imagine that God would have been like my grandmother with Adam. He would have known exactly how each ingredient in each proportion would affect the outcome of Adam and Eve and all the animals that he made from scratch.

Another example are engineers for the space program. They used engineering principles to make predictions and test them to find solutions to problems that never existed before. They used mathematical models to derive solutions, then tested them empirically, and when their collective confidence was strong, they put their plan into action. Without any foreknowledge or omniscience, engineers put men on the moon by ensuring certain conditions were met, and they enjoyed many successful outcomes.

Adam worked with what he had. Generally, a small number of mistakes are expected.

When Adam disobeyed Gods order not to eat the fruit, he was making decisions based within the boundaries of his frame of reference. Being the first human, mistakes should have been expected. Using myself as a standard, with my life experience, and generally knowing Good from Evil, I cannot see myself disobeying a God that I was confident existed. I know this about myself because I choose to abide by the Law and the Law is something less than a God. Since I choose to abide by the Laws of my society, I would likewise choose to abide by the Laws of a God that I believed existed. To me it is obvious that Adam made a mistake because he did not understand what he was doing.

In fact, Adam did not, on a whim, decide to disobey God. There were many other factors that led to that act that should be considered. There is no doubt that he knew that God said not to eat the fruit, but he could not have known it was wrong to trust Eve's new information and revise his options and choices. People that are not capable of flexibility in their decision making are severely handicapped in life and in business. Of course revising opinions and making decisions on the information at hand can lead to mistakes, generally it guarantees more successful outcomes. Adam and Eve revised their thinking based on new information but because they were missing the component that enabled knowledge of Good and Evil, they were mentally incompetent as detailed in the article "Gen. 2:16-3:24: Adam and Eve Were Mentally Incompetent". They did not have knowledge of Good and Evil before they ate the fruit, they possessed desire, exhibited preferences, and exhibited several cognitive biases that put enabled them to be persuaded by the snake.


A list of factors follows leading up to Adams disobedience.

1. Adam Existed
1.a. Adam and Eve had desire built in (Gen. 3:6)
1.b. Adam and Eve were missing some cognitive processes (Knowledge of Good and Evil, experience with bad people) (Gen. 3:7)
1.c. Adam and Eve had Cognitive Bias built in (trusting someone they like) (Gen. 3:6)
2. Adam was put in the Garden
3. Eve existed
3.a No Warning about the snake
4. Snake Existed
5. Tree Existed

These were the factors involved in causing Adam to disobey God. If any one of these factors had not existed, the likelihood that Adam would have disobeyed God would decrease. This is obvious in hindsight, but since God is supposedly Omniscient, and he engineered everything, if he didn't know it, he should have been able to reliably predict it.

Causal Diagram of Adams Transgression.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Gen. 2:16-3:24: Adam and Eve Were Mentally Incompetent

This an article to show that Adam and eve did not know the difference between good and evil before they ate the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil therefore could not understand the consequences of what they were doing. It uses a timeline and a matrix for analysis. Points in time are defined and used to document the point along a timeline where one event occurred in relation to another. It concludes that since Adam and Eve were missing a vital element in decision making, were uneducated, had no life experience to speak of and had no reason not to trust anyone, they were mentally incompetent to be held accountable for disobeying God and causing the punishments of Sin and Judgment to be given to every human thereafter.

Another interpretation of "Fall of Man" story is that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is really the tree of all knowledge where the terms Good and Evil are used as a merism ("bookends" or "upper and lower limits") to express a range, in the same manner as the term "young and old". This is considered a common usage in Biblical Poetry. I don't use this interpretation for this document but it wouldn't change the conclusion anyway.

Keep in mind when you read this, that since Adam and Eves situation is counter-intuitive, meaning that no-one but a person with a mental handicap or a child knows what it is like not to understand the difference between good and evil. It may be hard to avoid slipping into a "normal" frame of reference when discussing their state of mind before they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (K, G & E)

TIMELINE OF EVENTS
GENESIS 2:16
Time 01 - Warning about the Tree of G&E
Here is where people become accountable for knowing about the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this point they still do not know the difference between good and evil and have never had any other relationships with anyone else except God whom they trust completely. God was being ambiguous and therefore deceptive by saying "you will surely die". He wasn't exercising the principle of clarity in communication.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

T02 - God decides to make a helper for Adam from the animals
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

T03 - Adam names the animals and tries to pick a helper
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

T04 - Adam did not choose a helper so God decides to make one for him from his rib, effectively making him the first mother.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

T05 - They were naked and felt no shame.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

GENESIS 3: THE FALL OF MAN

T06 - Eves first experience with someone she shouldn't trust.
Eve is now introduced to her first experience with someone whose intent may be to decieve her and possibly manipulate her, and she doesn't know the difference between Good and Evil. There was evidently no warning about the snake. There are several default reasoning schemes that people commonly use and seem to present naturally. It takes education and experience to be able to overcome these. Presumably, since Eve and Adam were human, uneducated and with no life experience to speak of, they were susceptible to most if not all of these. A partial list of Cognitive Bias and Factors of Persuasion relevant to Adam and Eves situation taken from one of my other articles follows.
- People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.
- People look for confirmation of what they already believe and disregard things that contradict.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from an authority.

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Eve took this as new valid information and acted on it. According to the context of the story, it should not be possible to know that disobeying God was Evil. She had no concept of Good or Evil.

The snake told the truth. Even if his intent was to get Eve and Adam to disobey god, he still exercised the principle of clarity better than God did. And Eve did not have any experience with "Bad people" or know the difference between "good and evil" people. Eve gave the snake the benefit of the the doubt, she evidently did not dislike him, what he said fit what she wanted to believe and she undoubtedly took it to be authoritative about the Tree. She exercised her naturally occurring reasoning schemes.

T07 - They eat the fruit.
Neither Eve or Adam had any wisdom or knowledge of good and evil at this point, she trusted the snake because she did not have any reason not to. There is no indication that they had any idea about lying. Adam and Eve both had built in cognitive biases that come into play here, such as trusting what others say, and Desire was apparently built into Eve as described in Gen. 3:6.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. The bible says, through inference, that she was missing wisdom. She wanted to gain wisdom.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

T08 - God calls for Adam and Eve to come out of hiding
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

Because it was likely that he would trust her.

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Because it was likely that given the opportunity, this would happen.

T09 - God distributes the punishment establishing the origins and explanations of several things
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
15 And I will put enmity
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
16 To the woman he said,
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
19 By the sweat of your brow
...OMITTED FOR BREVITY...

T10 - Adam names Eve
20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

T11 - God makes clothes for them
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

T12 - God realizes the fact the Adam might eat the fruit of the Tree of Life
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from
the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

T13 - Banishment
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

T14 - Closes Eden off
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

HYPOTHESIS MATRIX
This is a Hypothesis matrix testing the hypothesis that Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between Good and Evil when they disobeyed God. The data are labeled with a "C" for consistent with the hypothesis, "A" for Ambiguous (it doesn't make a difference but is worth mentioning), and "I" for Inconsistent. The hypothesis that is least inconsistent with the data is the better hypothesis.
Data Didn't Know Did know
God is all knowing A A
God is all powerful A A
T01 Gen. 2:16 Adam can eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, but he doesn't. Evidently he is not interested in it or maybe he doesn't realize what it means. God may have known that he wouldn't eat it although what God says at T12 in 2:22 contradicts his supposed omniscience. C I
T01 Gen. 2:17 Commands the man not to eat the fruit of the Tree of K, G&E or he will surely die, but neglected to tell him the truth which is that he will know the difference between good and evil and as a result will realize that he is naked C I
Until man eats the fruit he will not know the difference between good and evil C I
T02 Gen. 2:18 Adam was alone and has never had any experience with anyone he shouldn't trust C I
T06 Gen. 3:4-5 The snake could not have known the difference between good and evil unless it had acquired it from somewhere. If it did, then it had the advantage over Eve. If it didn't know the difference between good and evil then it did nothing wrong by telling Eve the truth. In any case It was smarter than Eve because it knew that she would not literally die. The serpent clearly described what would happen with the Tree of K, G&E better than God did. This is where Eve got the truth about the tree. C I
T07 Gen. 3:6 Eve trusted the serpent, evidently because she didn't know not too, she didn't know that dying was bad, or that disobeying god was bad. The desire was built into her and Humans have or acquire cognitive biases that must be unlearned. C I
T07 Gen. 3:7 After they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened and they knew that being naked was bad. This is a cultural rule, not a natural one. C I

The Hypothesis that "Adam and Eve did not know the difference between a good and an evil act" is the least inconsistent with the data, therefore, I conclude that they were not at fault. They were following the natural cognitive processes that they were born with (untempered by education), and when prompted by a new agent, they innocently did what it suggested. To suggest that Adam and Eve were somehow immune from cognitive biases that have been shown to be commonly naturally occurring in humans is pure speculation. Since it has been demonstrated by the timeline that Adam and Eve were missing a vital element in decision making, were uneducated, had no life experience to speak of and had no reason not to trust anyone, they were mentally incompetent to be held accountable for disobeying God and causing the punishments of Sin and Judgment to be given to every human thereafter.

Further Reading on Cognitive Biases and Persuasion Principles
The Role of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias In Your Church

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Mechanism Behind Mind-body Connection Discovered

"The study reveals how stress makes people more susceptible to illness." Science Daily Article.
This is a datum to support my assertion that the hypothesis that the "Problem of Evil/Suffering is a Test" is demonstrably false.

Every cell contains a tiny clock called a telomere, which shortens each time the cell divides. Short telomeres are linked to a range of human diseases, including HIV, osteoporosis, heart disease and aging. Previous studies show that an enzyme within the cell, called telomerase, keeps immune cells young by preserving their telomere length and ability to continue dividing.
...
UCLA scientists found that the stress hormone cortisol suppresses immune cells' ability to activate their telomerase.
...
The study reveals how stress makes people more susceptible to illness.


If the problem of Evil/Suffering is a test then it is a test that degrades the performance of the participant resulting in a negative feedback loop where the participants ability to cope is degraded as the test proceeds. If we are to be judged on our ability to cope with hardships, and our ability to cope with hardships is demonstrably decreased over time under the influence, and no two people have the same hardships, then there can be no consistent standard to judge by. This is not consistent with sound testing methods.

If the participant can only think and make decisions with the biological material they have at hand, namely their brain, and their brain is susceptible to degradation as is the rest of the body, then the problem of Evil/Suffering as a test is not as much a test of spirit as it is a test of biological integrity.

If however the spirit is a separate entity and is not susceptible to degradation, then while this may be a hypothesis, it is not consistent with any known observations and is only supported by anecdote and writings, some of which are of unknown origin. However, the degradation of spirit during hardship over time has been observed so much that it has become an expected outcome of hardship. Notable exceptions to this outcome are not limited to Christians and should not be used as a datum to support the Christian view of "The problem of Evil/Suffering as a test". Therefore it is a dubious hypothesis, if it can be considered a hypothesis at all.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

One Mechanism for Biological Bases for Behavior

This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin" and that we don't have as much free will as we think we do. The new field of Epigenetics is documenting that regulating gene expression in the brain affects how susceptible we are to maladies such as depression, anxiety and drug addiction.

One viewpoint that I keep pushing around here is that we don't have as much free will as we think we do. I argue that the brain is an electrochemical device where millions of tiny biological switches accept combinations of thousands of analog signals that interact together to turn processes on and off to produce what we call "our self". Now I know there is lot a packed into that statement (presumptions and all) but I want to focus on one molecular mechanism that is a part of all of that.

First, a layman's description of Genes and Gene expression.

What is a Gene?
Genes are a smaller component of DNA. It is made up of combinations of chemicals units called A (Adenine), T (Thymine), G (Guanine) and C (Cytosine). Chromatin proteins called histones compact and organize DNA to form chromosomes. Chromosomes are made up of DNA and reside in the nucleus of a Cell. Chromosomes guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins.

Genes carry chemical information that is used by the cells to collectively determine their characteristics. Each cell contains from 20,000 to 25,000 genes attached to a strand of DNA coiled up into a chromosome, sitting in the nucleus of a cell.

One estimate I found states that there are between 75 to 100 trillion cells that make up the human body. Only in the brain there are estimated to be 100 billion cells interconnected by trillions of synapses (http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070405_brain_use.html).

Gene Expression
Our genes form the blue prints for proteins. Our bodies are built on proteins, just like a nicely marbled rib eye steak. Accordingly our brains are built on proteins. Every cell has every gene, but each cell only uses a subset of those genes. For a gene to be "expressed" it must be accessed by a chemical catalyst to cause the formation of an RNA molecule. The RNA is then used to make a protein, and the cell uses the protein to carry out its purpose in life, whatever that may be. In the brain, the purpose is to run your body in the background without any conscious effort or knowledge of it on your part and to produce the various stages of consciousness you experience between sleep to stressing out in traffic. Don't forget that while you are stressing out in traffic and worrying about that slow person in your way, you are still listening to the radio, working the pedals, breathing, remembering to call someone when you get in, etc. There's a lot going on that you are not conscious of so it is not accurate to say that YOU are in control, but it is accurate to say that your sense of self is one of those processes going on in the brain that you are not of aware of or even know how to manipulate. But those process are manipulated automatically biologically by a wide range of bodily process which include hormones produced by your organs (the endocrine system). Your brain gets feedback from your organs and it is regulated by them whether you like it or want it or not. Your brain reacts to stimulus and is regulated by the various chemicals that are set into motion as a result. Your experience in traffic changes your mind, your mood, your attitude, your thoughts, your wishes, your desires whether you like it or not. Those molecules that are the catalyst for creating RNA molecules are released, and they go about feeding the cells that your brain is using to handle your traffic experience. Your performance, your emotion, your mood, you thoughts, your access to your memories and your sense of self depends on how well those molecular processes work.

For an RNA molecule to be produced, a chromosome "unravels" (remember that a chromosome is coiled up DNA) to permit the catalyst molecules access to the sequence of ATGC that it is made up of. To "silence" a gene, is to prevent the interaction of the catalyst by preventing it from getting to the uncoiled part of the chromosome or from preventing the chromosome from uncoiling. The body does this on its own, your 'self' doesn't have any choice in the matter, whether it works properly or not. In fact, you or your personality can be modified and you won't even realize it. Just like gene expression causes your pancreas to work properly to do what it is supposed to do, gene expression causes your brain to work properly to do what is supposed to do which is run the processes in your body (such as your sense of self), and create your physical and emotional characteristics that everyone else knows as "YOU".

Now the Hard questions. Were does the soul fit into this? What is "the Soul"? Is the Soul "the personality"? Is the Soul the "I" in "I am alive"? If the personality/soul likes chocolate or to harm animals, can it stop liking those things? Why do people like anything? Am I responsible for things that I like? How do we turn "liking" on or off?

I'll buy a beer for anyone that can tell me why chocolate is so appealing to people. I know why, I'm just looking for audience participation.

One way to turn "liking" off is by manipulating the brain. Its bound to be more reliable than praying and there's no worrying about whether you've got the right god or not.

Nature versus Nurture.
We have been living with this concept since as long as I can remember. What makes one tomato more tasty than another or one person more amicable than another? Finally we know, it is a feedback loop between nature and nurture and we have identified one mechanism by which it happens. Now that this mechanism is revealed, scientists hope to develop treatments for maladies such as drug addiction, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Maybe one day they can discover where a specific desire originates from. Maybe one day it can be used to rehabilitate criminals. Maybe one day they can fix the Limbic Systems in psychopaths or make sociopaths more compassionate. Maybe one day they can give me something that will allow me to like mushrooms.

If I were to take a liking to harming animals, and I acted on that, then I am responsible and should be stopped, not necessarily for punishment because punishment may not mean anything to me, but I should be stopped simply to prevent more harm. However, if I have the desire, but do not act on it, since it is "in my heart" the bible says that I am still responsible for it. The desire is born in the brain, electrochemically, and subject to the "nature vs nurture" feedback loop. Since this feedback loop is verifiable, and predictable to a degree, and at least one mechanism for how it works has been identified, to say that human kind is accountable to the creator for "its sin" is as ridiculous as to say that I am responsible for how ugly I am or I am responsible for my dislike of mushrooms or that I even have a choice in the matter.

For further reading
Scientific American Mind, June 2008
* The New Genetics of Mental Illness (subscription or print only)
* Unmasking Memory Genes (subscription or print only)
* Addicted to Starvation: The Neurological Roots of Anorexia

From me on DC
* Reasonable Doubt About Sin: Biological Bases for Behavior
* Sin, Genes, Sugars and Alcohol
* Brains "Trust Machinery" Identified
* "When Our Vices Get the Better of Us"
* Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds
* Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals
* Brain atrophy in elderly leads to unintended Racism, Depression and Gambling

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Brain's 'Trust Machinery' Identified

This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin".
Sciencedaily.com
The brain centers triggered by a betrayal of trust have been identified by researchers, who found they could suppress such triggering and maintain trust by administering the brain chemical oxytocin.
Brain processes were able to be manipulated without the subject noticing. This means that as far as our motives and desires go, we are our own frame of reference. We may not understand that our reactions, desires and motives fall outside the expectations of others or if we do realize that our behavior falls outside the expectations of others we may not believe that it is a problem. In effect, our perception of reality is a function of the electrochemical processes in our head to the point that we may very sincerely be wrong and very sincerely not realize it.

While the study doesn't relate specifically to sin, motives and desires, I will use it as an analogy to argue from based on the presumption built on evidence that the brain responds similarly to environmental and hormonal factors.

If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed. No one can reasonably be said to be willfully sinning against God because, from the perspective of the Human, all the factors cannot be detected or taken into account.

For example, how do any of you, or even me for that matter, know that I have willfully rejected god? It could very easily be a malfunction in the brain. And conversely, christians that believe in God could very well be suffering from a malfunction in the brain. We could very well have a cocktail of chemicals that cause this feeling and we would not realize or believe that it is wrong.

How this relates to sin is that if we are not aware that we are sinning, how can we be held accountable? And since that is the case, if we are to be held accountable for eternity for our sins on earth, why is it possible to manipulate the center of our desires and motivations? Our behavior, desires and motives should be impervious to any influence that are not our own to ensure proper accountability.

While a rapist may very well know that he or she is doing wrong by raping he or she may have no control over the initiation of the desire to do it. He or she can't be said to "be evil" or have "lust in the heart" because the desire could very well be the result of electrochemical processes in his or her head. Some of us have overwhelming desires to do the wrong thing, something more along the lines of deception or gaining unfair advantage, that we can easily justify internally and not realize it is wrong. Behavior such a sweet grandmother that is racist. Behavior that is taught or picked up and embedded in our brains electrochemically until something changes it.

This demonstrates that there is no thought process that goes on outside the brain, there is only the thought process that goes on in the brain of which the brain is its own frame of reference and which can be manipulated by external agents of which it cannot detect.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Sin, Genes, Sugars and Alcohol

This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin".

Genetic Variation Linked To Preference Sugary Food
It has long been recognized that Addiction to sugary foods are a predictor of alcoholism(1,3,4). Ethanol (alcohol that you can drink) is made from sugars and starch(6). Now a mechanism to account for the craving for sugar has been identified in the GLUT2 gene(2). While many "sins" can be attributed to poor choices, some sins that start with an inexplicable desire cannot. Various addictions are sustained by a "craving" that has yet to be explained in medical terms. It has traditionally been attributed to poor self-control or a lack of desire to behave properly.

While Cbsessive Compulsive Disorder does not fall into the substance abuse class of Sin, it does have the characteristic of lack of control for a desired behavior. Criminologists have theories on the lack of control for behavior and have identified that the desire for self control is separate from the capacity for self-control(5). One may desire not to steal, but one may be compelled to steal anyway.

While christians are quick to point out that God gave us free will to choose to obey his commands, they say that God won't influence us to follow his commands because it will "turn us into robots". However I have yet to see a christian explain why God doesn't have a problem building the DESIRE into us which, using thier principle, should make us a "robot" to sin. Since we have these desires built into us that cause some of us to do things that we wish we could stop, it refutes the concept of sin. Being a slave to sin, as I understand it, is a Calvinistic doctrine where predestination is a tenet. In my view, as I understand it, in this respect the Calvinistic view is the most logically consistant, however barbaric.


1. Does a Sweet Tooth Mean Alcoholism?
2. Genetic Variation Linked To Preference Sugary Food
3. Specificity of ethanol like effects elicited by serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms.
4. "Specificity of Ethanol..." Translated for the layman
5. Self-Restraint: A Study on the Capacity and Desire for Self-Control
6. From Cereal Corn To Alcohol

Friday, February 8, 2008

Reasonable Doubt About Sin, Biological Bases For Behavior

This article expresses doubt about sin. It challenges the concept of Sin and Eternal Reward and Punishment. Human behavior is too complex to be handled by a dichotomy of "reward and punishment".

It is a very long article, and i apologize but it is so long exactly because it gets to the heart of Christianity and shows how ignorant of human behavior the authors were. It argues that if God created us, that since we have biological bases for behavior that heavily influence our freewill, the dichotomy of reward and punishment rather than remediation is unjust because he designed us with a high potential to fail. The article is divided into two sections. The first section is a general overview of the argument, and the second part is more technical with links to data.

Even as a Christian, I have always thought the policy that people were more bad than good was odd. I just took it on faith that it was true. Then I just took it on faith that all the little tiny sins amounted to something that was relatively disgusting to a god, however much I couldn't understand it. But since I lost my faith, I now believe that Christianity follows in the footsteps of all the other religions before it that correlate blood with fertility, Gods with kings and heroes who struggle with death. Humans have a special part as subjects and should constantly strive to behave better. Basically, religion creates a problem by exaggerating the bad then sells the solution. Its a tried and true technique, that many different organizations (including marketing) practice today. People are bad and they need God or a King to keep them in line. In fact, I just heard about how nasty people were from my co-worker, then I challenged him to walk around the building with me and point to "nasty people". "Nasty People" are a minority. If they weren't there would be no civilization. Its The Blame Game. The claim goes "People are Evil, Lazy, Unmotivated and Stupid because they choose to be, but don't despair, there is a solution!"

Human behavior is and has typically been viewed as good or Bad/Evil. Supposedly Jesus cast out demons, and this practice continues today. But this idea of spirits causing bad behavior was left behind by science. Science has taken a slow track to the point it is today because until recently fruitful "non-destructive" brain research has been impossible. Science has exposed the good/evil false dichotomy and shows that Christianity ignores a lot of very important qualifiers about human behavior. Even in the cases of ordinary behavior of the people you work with, their behavior doesn't stem from them being a "bad" or "good" person. Human behavior is influenced by the following inter-dependent factors and the human is more or less unaware of them.
- Population and Species attributes
- Natural selection
- Genetic Makeup
- Fetal Development
- Perinatal Biology
- Development
- Acute Hormones
- Environmental Triggers
- Neurobiology

What you will notice is that Freewill is missing. That is because freewill itself is made up of those components. We don't have as much "freewill" as we imagine we do. Where do you draw the line between normal behavior and a disorder? Where do you draw the line of culpability?

Additionally as I discussed in Reasonable Doubt About The Problem of Evil/Needless Suffering As A Test there is a negative feedback loop between stress and our behavior. The influence that environmental and biological factors have on the function of the brain limits options and performance without the person even realizing it. These factors are an inseparable part of the decision making process.

When we see behavior exhibited by a person, it is a result of these factors. Whether or not the behavior meets our expectations or that of God, it originated out of the frail bodily organ that is the brain. It may be that these factors cannot really be appreciated until they are put under stress or do not work properly. Many times the result is behavior that is outside the norm and/or doesn't meet our expectations. How much culpability does a person have when the tools they are given are not adequate for the task at hand? In the context of having our behavior judged by God, there is only eternal reward or eternal damnation. Curiously there is no facility for treatment except for the bible, church, prayer and repentance. But living in a constant state of repentance causes stress, poor self-esteem and approaches depression. With the advances in biological sciences in the last few decades, Western Judicial Systems have been forced to re-evaluate policies to determine if treatment rather than punishment is the better decision, because everyday secular science gets one step closer to easing a previously mysterious malady.

I argue that if we were put here as a test, then we should have been designed exactly opposite. As it is now, resisting temptation and denying our nature causes frustration and stress. It seems to be a backward system where following the rules results in angst, frustration, poor health and ultimately unhappiness. It seems to be a system designed to demotivate. It seems to be a system designed to foster failure.

If god made us, then obviously he is responsible for our architecture. The bible says we prefer sin, and using the definition of sin in the bible, it seems to be true. But what is sin? Who decides what sin is? Is sin being promiscuous or overeating? Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.

How do we stay motivated to do things that promote our survival? We have to have some internal 'detector' that makes us want to do something that promotes our survival. Sex feels good doesn't it? Eating when you are hungry feels good doesn't it? Dopamine receptors in the brain receive Dopamine that gets released into the blood stream by the endocrine system that provides some of that positive feedback. But a malfunctioning dopamine system or the introduction of foreign bodies that are similar to dopamine can cause addictions. It is a flawed process that can be easily fooled by things such as food, alcohol and cocaine into malfunctioning. Not the high quality I would expect out of the workshop of a God.

Do people choose who they are sexually aroused by? I didn't choose my sexual preference, and by the way most people talk, they didn't either, but to hear a Christian denounce homosexuality as abhorrent behavior you'd think they are attracted to both sexes but choose to be heterosexual. I don't buy it because I know that pheromones or at least something that is given off by an individual has an effect on arousal. I know that 1 in 6000 humans are born with both genitalia and I know that some people are pseudohermaphrodites (they have the normal genitalia but with opposite gender ovaries or testicles partially developed in the lower torso). I also know that scientists can biologically manipulate the sexuality of Mice and Fruit-flies in the lab and that there are over 1500 species of animals that are know to exhibit homosexual behavior.

I challenge the whole concept of sin. I think it is a misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written. I say we are at least as 'good' as we are 'sinful' and in reality the lines of 'good' and 'sin' are blurred by context. The act of lying is a good example of that. Organisms use a mixture of strategies such as Individual Selection, Kin Selection and variations of "Tit-for-Tat" to survive. Game theory mathematics predicts some behaviors such as cooperation and selecting for cooperative mates. "Tit-for-Tat" is a logical strategy not specific to humans that naturally evolves out of situations as demonstrated in nature and between armies in World War 1 and 2.

Christians say this 'death' came after Adam disobeyed god, but I say that the evidence is reasonably conclusive that there never was an Adam and Eve. The only evidence for Adam and Eve come from the bible, the Egyptian myth of the potter that makes humans out of clay, and the Sumerian myth of the god that was killed and his blood was mixed with the earth to make humans. Experts on the bible, Christians and scientists discount the Egyptian and Sumerian accounts so all that is left is the Bible as the sole source. If Adam and Eve did exist then for them to have conceived of choosing to disobey god, the mechanism to do that would have had to already existed. They would have already had to have the architecture in place to allow that to happen. If not, then God would have had to make a "Great Overhaul" of human and animal physiology to 'curse us'. Alternately to say that Adam and Eve are just Metaphors for mans sinful nature is to admit that we were made from the beginning to "prefer sin" or somewhere along the line, we were perfect and then decided to sin and the "Great Overhaul" occurred, but anthropology does not support that conclusion in any measure.

If God made us this way then we are sabotaged to prefer to sin (survival strategies), and to resist it causes stress which adversely affects our happiness and sometimes our health. Some of our biological features had evolutionary advantages that don't make sense anymore. Such as overeating and sexual promiscuity. Addictions are evolutionary processes running amok that never had the ability or time to compensate for error. To say that God sabotaged us to prefer sin is obviously a ridiculous charge against the Christian God, therefore the alternative is that he didn't have anything to do with our creation.

WHAT IS BEHAVIOR?

It is the result of a feedback loop between the environment and a biological system of feedback loops that all influence each other circularly. As research progresses, it is removing the mystery and supernatural aspects of who we and how we behave. There are biological factors involved in who we vote for, what we believe in, what we like, what we think about, what we experience, what makes us an "I", what makes up our essence.

POPULATION AND SPECIES ATTRIBUTES, NATURAL SELECTION
Through a strategy of reproducing, eating when food is available, selecting for things that 'feel good' and/or selecting for things that support its well being organisms naturally survive. There is a point when their behavior prevents them from dying, and another point when it causes them to thrive, and another point when their behavior is not appropriate in the environment anymore. The more of these organisms that survive, the more they reproduce and the more copies they make of themselves. Over time, survival strategies evolved naturally. Some of these were discovered after that "Beautiful Mind" John Nash created a mathematical model of economic behavior. This model was expanded into what is now known as "Game Theory". In Game theory a strategy known as "Tit-for-Tat" was discovered, where participant A trusts participant B till B does something that violates it, then A will do something against B until B's behavior conforms, and vice versa. The most famous example of this spontaneous non-violent behavior is in the "Christmas Truce" of World War One in 1914 which was an instance of the "Live and Let Live" spontaneous cooperation behavior. Not only are these cooperative behaviors selected for because they result in the survival of the organism, the organism selects partners that it sees will cooperate. These naturally arising survival strategies ensured early humans could pass on copies of themselves. Generally speaking, our behavior has evolved to ensure the successful copying of our genes.

GENES, GENETIC MAKEUP
Genes are the foundation for biological systems including the brain. They are a hereditary unit consisting of a sequence that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. DNA is a nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes by suboptimal process execution. They result in differences in eye color, body style, "quality" of blood, bones, teeth, cells, TEMPERAMENT, etc.

There are genetic factors that promote or detract from survival. Those genetic factors that promote survival will get more copies made. Organisms that survive will pass them on. A famous genetic mutation is Sickle Cell anemia. It evidently created an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed. Additionally, sometimes genes get distorted and a mutation occurs. Most of the time these mutations don't have much affect but sometimes they do. A striking behavioral example of this is Frontotemporal dementia. It is a neurological disorder (most often due to a specific mutation) in which disintegration of the frontal cortex occurs. This one genetic variant affects two people with opposite temperaments in opposite ways, turning a meek person into a wild one and a wild one into a meek one. Temperament is defined as the part of the personality that is genetically defined. Patterns of behavioral traits run in families. Another example is how Genital Arousal Disorder Adversely Impacts Women's Lives. Its challenging for us to make sense of 'who's the them inside there that's doing that'.

Genes code for the architecture of the neuron. The neuron is made up of a cell body (Soma) a dendritic tree and an axon . The axon is covered by a myelin sheath made of glial cells that provide support in the form of nutrition and insulation. Multiple sclerosis is a disease that attacks the myelin sheath. When the neurons are working properly, they communicate via electrochemical mechanisms. This results in the release of neurotransmitters such as Dopamine and Serotonin. Dopamine and Serotonin levels affect the brain and are used by a mechanism of recycling. When the levels of Dopamine and Serotonin are incorrect or interrupted, it results in diseases such as depression, bi-polar disease, schizophrenia, and others including addiction and possibly Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. For example, categorically speaking, serial killers have reduced levels of Serotonin. Additionally, cocaine is a type of drug that causes premature release of Dopamine transmitters and makes the drug highly addictive. Once a person is accustomed to the feeling created by the release of dopamine, when they don't have it, they miss it and will try to regain it. This is an effective evolutionary survival strategy. This is one reason why addiction is so powerful. It works on the central processing unit of the body. Manipulating neurotransmitters in the brain are a powerful way to manipulate moods and behavior in humans. Diseases such as schizophrenia are a result of poor neurotransmitter performance and are passed genetically. A less debilitating version is called Schizotypy. It has negative dimensions to it such as reduced social behavior but in some cases it results in higher incidences of creativity in individuals. Statistically, artists and authors have a higher incidence of schizophrenia in their families. Schizophrenia not only affects behavior, it also affects perception.

FETAL DEVELOPMENT, PERINATAL BIOLOGY, DEVELOPMENT
Another important factor in the development of this architecture of behavior is fetal development. We all know that mothers that smoke and drink alcohol increase the risk of harm to the baby, but we don't think about the mothers environment. Excessive stress is known to be harmful to the baby and mother. For example, excessive stress in the third trimester is known to correlate to a smaller head size. Poor nutrition is another factor that negatively impacts the fetus. Over successive pregnancies the womb compensates and modifies itself to account for what has been going on inside of it. It compensates for hormones, and correlates to fetus sexual development. I'm not saying that homosexuals are made in the mothers womb, but I am saying that Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is a pathology which makes a biological base for homosexuality very plausible. Additionally, factors that negatively impact the brain, nervous system, or endocrine system put the organism at a disadvantage before it leaves the womb. These factors play a part in developing the architecture that will produce behavior. The brain is made up of around 100 billion neurons each with connections to between 1000 - 10,000 other neurons, it uses a combination of electrical, chemical, analog and digital "state change" signaling to accomplish communication between them. There is a lot that could go wrong in a system like that. For example people under 16 years of age can't be given death penalty because it is recognized that the frontal lobe is not fully developed yet. This article from sciencedaily.com discusses Why Teens Are Such Impulsive Risk-takers. Biological factors reduce reasoning in one area while wildly enhancing it in others (Autism) reduce inhibitions, and leads to thinking about things that were previously unthinkable as evidenced in the following section.
Reasonable Doubt About The Atonement, Psychopathy
Reasonable Doubt About The Soul

BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES, ENDOCRINE SYSTEM, REGULATION OF THE BRAIN BY HORMONES, REGULATION OF THE HORMONES BY BRAIN, ACUTE HORMONES
This section shows the loop-back between the body and the brain.
Once the organism is born, in the early stages, its behavior will be mostly a result of reacting to its environment and the quality of the processes that result from the architecture that was formed in the womb. Babies that don't feel good, cry. Crying babies cause stress in the care provider. Crying babies will naturally motivate other babies to cry. Stress releases hormones from the organs (endocrine system) of both organisms. These hormones affect the frontal cortex and the limbic system, two systems that play a large role in behavior. But like all systems, organisms burn energy and use resources. There is never an endless supply of resources so the organism or system must reduce its activity to replenish resources or risk degraded performance. For example Sugar Affects Our Ability To Resist Temptation. A person that is chronically aggressive must spend more energy than those that are not resisting that feeling of aggression. Aggression is so basic that it can manifest itself through a genetic predisposition (MAOA), a tumor in the frontal cortex as in the famous case of Charles Whitman and the famous case of a recurrent tumor that caused recurrent pedophilia in a man, or testosterone and estrogen. Additionally, other ways hormones affect behavior is in the affect that male sweat has on females, female hormones have on each other (Menstrual syncronicity) , and how Subliminal Smells Bias Perception About A Person's Likability

ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS, NEUROBIOLOGY
As organisms interact in their environment, they behave according to internal factors, according to things they have learned and according to things they have stored in memory. They have the function of their internal processes influenced and shaped as time goes on. While it can be shown that a kind of xenophobia naturally results in the brain and the evolutionary advantage is apparent, people can reduce its impact by learning about the stranger and creating positive feelings about them. A practical example of this is Racism, and the fact that racism can be diminished through learning to trust one another. Xenophobia is a neurological reaction, an automatic dislike of strangers, and likewise there are some factors that make us feel the opposite automatically. A pleasing view or sound, or sensation on the skin is an example. The Biological clock has been shown to be regulated by light, and blue light at the wavelength of 480nm supports alertness and cognitive tasks. Sound at subsonic wavelengths from 17hz to 0.001 (aka infrasound) has been known to cause feelings of awe or fear in humans. Some reactions are automatic and set off reactions in the endocrine system that regulates the brain. Some stimuli gets that dopamine released and headed for those receptors. But what if something we like naturally is harmful? What if watching an organism experience fear causes dopamine to get released? Or what if we don't get the feedback we need to help shape our behavior one way or another? What if those paths between portions of the brain don't work efficiently because of a "Silent Stroke" or some natural defect? Sociopathy and Psychopathy are results of poor performance in emotional responses, and speaking less pathologically Schizotypy can result in a "wall flower", science fiction and fantasy enthusiast (like me) that can be amplified or reduced by the home environment.

REASONING, INFLUENCE

People are very easy to influence. For example, the more in sync we are with the people around us, the more we like a movie. Reasoning properly is not something we are born with. There are many books related to sales that teach you tricks for how to influence people in a positive way to a sales pitch. Robert Cialdini is probably the most famous doctor to popularize principles of influence. In business we have to overcome many counter-intuitive biases to come up with a sound successful business strategy. We have to gather data in a certain way and use learned principles of interpreting that data to come to sound conclusions of what 'truth' it represents. We have to overcome the tendency to confuse correlation with cause, etc. We have to be trained to think properly to overcome biases that are either learned or 'hardwired' in us. One bias is the famous "Pascals Wager". It is a simple heuristic that is analogous to the survival instinct. It says "minimize risk". While this is a sound principle, how one goes about is the hard part. We have to teach children to "reason away" the fear of something under the bed, in the closet or noises in the house. This is where the discipline in thinking comes into play, the inference from statistics, and learning the difference between correlation and cause and effect.

FREEWILL, DECISION MAKING
How much freewill is left in the pie chart of decision making? It is said among Christians that God gave us freewill as a gift and we are supposed to use it to choose to love and obey him. They say that he won't influence our freewill. If god will not influence our freewill, then it doesn't follow that he made us. If he made us, he built in all kinds of factors that influence our freewill.

So how does this figure in when we have to love god, or love our neighbor in the middle of living in this "evil" world? Stress reduces our ability to behave as we would like. It doesn't make it easy and your prayers may or may not get answered, and we may even find ourselves having to decide to jump to our death or burn to death when its all over.

Alternately, Biological Bases for Behavior make it plausible that atheists have no real choice but to be atheists in the same sense that creative thinkers have no choice in thinking creative thoughts or paranoids believe that people are out to harm them. It is likely that some are "wired" to be less susceptible to belief not supported by a certain level of criteria for evidence. Biological Bases for Behavior makes it plausible that 85% of the world are ABLE to believe, but 15% aren't. The Christian would be in that 85% and the Atheist would be in that 15%.

THE FLAWED PRINCIPLE OF REPENTANCE

If we are to be judged according to our thoughts, actions and decisions, and our thoughts, actions and decisions are influenced and or created by physiological factors, then we cannot be judged according to any standard since all people are physiologically unique and some behave in ways that they otherwise would not in different circumstances. How can we be judged for disobeying god when we cannot completely control our thoughts? To say, for example, that we are guilty of adultery for thinking about it (as Jesus did) is to say that there is no hope for redemption unless we are in a constant state of repentance. I should be repentant for something that I cannot control? For an aspect of my physiological makeup? Should I be sorry because I am ugly? I will be sent to eternal punishment because I am what I am? I am not able to live up to an unreachable standard so I am to be punished? If we are all supposed to do as well as we can and be repentant for the rest, what is the point at all? And how long can we stay repentant for something that never goes away? If our ability to avoid temptation is reduced as the amount of glucose is reduced, isn't it likely that as brain resources in general are reduced so are the associated processes? Are people to blame if they get tired of being repentant? Can someone be blamed for not being repentant about not being repentant? How can what we learn on the physical earth possibly transfer into our 'final reward' which is completely different? How is the ethereal 'soul' linked in any way to these physical processes? Is it affected as my glucose depletes?

Since the brain is a biological device. It can be influenced by physiological factors, and physiological factors induce desire and motivation. Since we cannot get outside of our thoughts and feelings, they make up our personality our "essence". This renders any judgment by an external supernatural creator meaningless because it would know that we are helpless to feel any other way than our physiological make up will support at the time, and that our behavior and desire will follow that. We are helpless to think any thoughts that are not supported by our physiological make up at the time. The physiological factors would have to be eliminated to make any judgment meaningful.

There is a theory that the brain is wired to do what it thinks and that it is because of an 'inhibitory circuit' in the brain that we can control our actions. When this is damaged, then we do things that we would ordinarily not do and in some cases do not realize it is wrong. I know bigots, and self-important arrogant people that don't even realize when they are being condescending and judgmental and don't even realize that what they are doing is wrong or unpleasant to be around. Any mention of it and I am the one that is in error because I am too sensitive or "exaggerated" or "self-righteous". Since our thoughts are determined by what state our brain is in at any given time, then so is our freewill and our moral compass. Our will, or motivation and desire is determined by what state our brain is in at any given time. This is not to say that we absolutely cannot control our behavior, it is just to say, that behavior outside the norm should be remediated, analyzed and assessed rather than judged.

None of this is laid out for understanding in the Bible. It was all misunderstood. Western Judicial Systems are on the edge of a cognitive science wind of change about why we behave the way we do and thinking about our culpability. At an AAAS Conference, Judges Explored the Impact of Neuroscience on the Justice system. They realize, as we all should, that the line between the essence of who we are and the biological factors tossing that essence about is getting shown be blurred.

Below are some links and notes I collected doing this research that support the article further.

* Time magazine,
- Ape with a conscience, pg. 54. vol 170, no. 23. Dec. 3, 2007
- The Science of Addiction, pg. 42. vol 170, no. 3. July 16, 2007
- The Science of Appetite, pg 32. Canadian Edition vol 169, no. 24. June 11, 2007.
* Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality, 2nd Edition
* University of Berkeley webcast courses: Psych 1 General Psychology
* Norman Geschwind can be considered the father of modern behavioral neurology in America.
* Pseudohermaphrodites
* Search for Craving Response on ScienceDaily.com. Research on addiction
* Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
* Epilepsy, religious figures
* Twin Studies
* Phineas Gage
* Tourette Syndrome
* Bipolar Disorder
* Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
* Borderline Personality Disorder
* Nymphomania
* Kleptomania
* Neophobia
* Depression
* The Role of Persuasion In The Question Of The Holy Spirit

Friday, February 1, 2008

A Call For The Scientific Investigation Of Exorcism

The image is of Terrance Cottrell. He was killed during his exorcism.
This article is intended as a call for the scientific investigation of exorcisms and a collection of data for a forthcoming article called "Reasonable Doubt About Sin, Biological Bases For Behavior". It shows why in all aspects of life, including faith and religion, that sound principles for evidence need to maintained. It seems there is broad agreement that the suspected demon possessed individual should be screened for psychological disorders, but when and how it gets done seems to be a problem. This is a call to "The Body Of Christ" to do the responsible thing and devote some of those tithes to a fund for the medical/scientific investigation into suspected cases of demon possession to include such things as blood tests, MRI and PET scans.

Wikipedia, Exorcism
An exorcism is a ritual to expel evil spirits from a person or place. In human possession it works by making the demon uncomfortable enough to leave the victim. In order to make the demon uncomfortable, it is usually necessary to make the victim uncomfortable. This entails methods that span the spectrum of annoying, to torturous to deadly. Exorcisms are a common practice in many places in the world. It is sanctioned by at least two protestant churches in the United States, Protestant churches in Nigeria Africa, and by the Vatican. As far as I can tell, they all caution against mistaking psychological disorders for demon possession. This, like prayer, seems to be an intersection between the natural and the supernatural that should have a significant amount of resources devoted to it.

If demon possession is real, what is it about the exorcism that is so compelling that it causes the demon to leave? The exorcist? Why wouldn't it be Christ? Is it the combination of Christ and the Exorcist? Considering that demons don't leave without the exorcist, it must be the exorcist that is the most important part.

The following are a short and incomplete list of deaths by exorcism

* On March, 8, 1995, Kyung-A Ha, 25, was beaten severely during a night-long exorcism conducted by members of the Jesus-Amen Ministries in San Francisco.
* Kyung Jae Chung was killed in a July 4, 1996 exorcism in Los Angeles.
* In 1997, a 5-year old girl in Bronx, N.Y., was forced to drink a mixture of ammonia, pepper, vinegar and olive oil because her mother and grandmother thought she was possessed. Gagged with duct tape, she died.
* Charity Miranda, a teenager from Long Island, N.Y., was suffocated in a plastic bag by her mother and sister during a ceremony in 1998.
* Terrance Cottrell, an 8-year-old, was beaten to death during an attempted exorcism in Milwaukee last September.
The above taken from CBS News
* priest and nuns jailed for exocism death
* Janet Moses, a mother-of-two, is thought to have drowned when at least one member of her 'healing group' held her under water, while trying to drive out an evil curse.

The following are links to information about Pope sanctioned exorcism
Pope John Paul II performs exorcism
Pope Benedict XVI promotes exorcisms

And the following are a list of where to go to get an exorcism done.
Logos Christian Fellowship
Erica Shepherd, Lady Exorcist
Integrated Healing Prayer Ministry, maybe Erica again
Adversaries Walk Among Us
Vatican School for Exorcism
Witch Children of Nigeria

With greater scrutiny maybe the practice will fall into disrepute and the victims will get the help they need instead of abuse.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds

This is relevant to the role of persuasion and influence in the church community as an impediment to free-will.
This study supports other studies where people are influenced by the group to change their opinion.
In this study researches found that they could predictively influence the opinions of subjects by showing them information about the opinions of their peers. It is so effective that it could be used in marketing by competitors by going online and trash talking a product to influence consumers against it.
Sciencedaily.com

REFERENCE
Sciencdaily.com: Mind and Brain

Monday, September 24, 2007

Brain Atrophy In Elderly Leads To Unintended Racism, Depression And Problem Gambling


This is an article providing information about Biological Bases for Behavior.
It is intended as evidence to weaken the doctrine of sin as a result of freewill and the concept of an absolute freewill.

ScienceDaily.com

excerpt
"Science Daily — As we age, our brains slowly shrink in volume and weight. This includes significant atrophy within the frontal lobes, the seat of executive functioning. Executive functions include planning, controlling, and inhibiting thought and behavior. In the aging population, an inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts and behavior causes several social behaviors and cognitions to go awry.

In a study appearing in the October issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, University of Queensland psychologist, Bill von Hippel, reports that decreased inhibitory ability in late adulthood can lead to unintended prejudice, social inappropriateness, depression, and gambling problems."

Peoples behavior, decisions, choices, attitude, temperament, etc are shaped by many factors. Some of the more important ones are Genetics, Environment and Physiology.

If we cannot do what we prefer because the brains cognitive mechanism can be influenced externally, then freewill is impeded. If we do things that we would prefer not to, or would not normally do if the cognitive mechanism supported it, then we should not be held culpable by a God on the basis of freewill. I think this can be extrapolated proportionally from the extreme to the average person.

At what point would be "convicted of sin"? Would it be better to kill ourselves when we think we are at our most "righteous" and hope for the best?

I am going to continue to post these types of news articles as I find them.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Reasonable Doubt about The Atonement: Psychopathy

This is intended as the first of a series exploring Biological Bases of Behavior and its implications for Christianity. The focus of this article is on Psychopathy and its implications regarding the Atonement.

It explains that psychopathy is regarded alternately as an emotional disorder and/or a genetically selected sub-population of people that cannot feel love, empathy or remorse. It shows that it is inherited and likely has a genetic component. It discusses the correlation with differences in amygdala function between this population and the mean. Considering Matt. 22:37s commandment to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, the question becomes, what happens to the psychopath in this process? According to the explanation of the Atonement, it may cover their sins, but they cannot meet the requirement to love God, and repent.

This link provides a great overview of Evangelical views of Atonement. It was written by John W. Loftus to show how viewpoints of Atonement are linked to the cultural values of their period. And here is a different article from another blogger with a similar topic to this one. It argues that modern cognitive science leaves little room for the existence of a "soul."

Christianity depends on the belief that Christ died for our sins. From the perspective of the Evangelical all the sins of all of the people in the world past, present and future went onto Christ and when he died, he died as atonement for the sins of the past, present and future people of the world. People are predisposed to sin rather than follow Gods law. People are predisposed to behave in a way that is not consistent with Gods law.
How did people get that way? Was it the original sin of disobeying Gods law in the garden of Eden or was it something that happened as a result of the way we are made?

Allegedly Jesus died for us so we won’t have to, yet people are predisposed to sin for biological reasons as much as for “moral” reasons. For God to have gone to the trouble to become Man and go through the crucifixion it seems like he should have eliminated biological bases for behavior that make it likely that people will disobey Him. If he had done that it would have become purely a moral question.

God created humans along with the world. So it follows that he made us this way. To say that he didn’t infers that something changed the initial state of our nature. If something changed, what was it? If we stipulate that Adam and Eve were real, and if we say that the decision to eat the Apple was made by Adam and Eve, how did the thought even arise in them to disobey God unless it occurred naturally? If it would not have occurred naturally but it was the result of a deception by Satan, then either they had no clue what they were doing and we are suffering the problem of evil for their stupidity or they had the mechanism built in to disobey God. The circuitry was in place to entertain the idea of disregarding the importance of obeying God. I’m sure if they had more life experience or had a concept of what the implications would be they would not have done it, but that is an argument for another time. So it appears that we had the propensity to disobey God built in. Let’s call it freewill.

To say that Humans choose to disobey God infers that we know what God wants in the first place. I will stipulate for the purpose of this article that we should be able to understand how God wants us to behave from scripture.

What does God want from us?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment." Matthew 22:37

And some others follow.
Love one another as we love ourselves, to act justly, to love mercy, to keep the commandments, obey God, believe God, trust God, know God, seek God, repent, strive to overcome our nature and have faith.

These words were written by people that did not understand the properties of the brain. These words were written before the discovery of principles that demonstrably affect behavior such as not being able to process emotional information or being genetically predisposed to disease. Severe mental disorder was thought to be the result of spirits. These words were written before anyone knew that the emotional disorder of Psychopathy was possible.

If we know that mental processes can be affected by influences other than internal thoughts, then that casts doubt on the whole concept of absolute free will. If we stipulate that there is a non-absolute type of freewill available to everyone, then we can see that there is a varying degree of freewill accessible by everyone. What degree of freewill does a Psychopath have? What degree of free will does a Sociopath have? What degree of free will does a person with depression have? What degree of freewill does a person have that has a tumor that affects mental processes? What degree of free will do you have? The functioning of the Brain can be altered by chemicals and trauma as much as it can by a persons internal thought processes, environment and culture. Decision making processes including those relating to morality can be handicapped by the structure of the brain itself. One aspect of freewill is accessibility to options. When your options are limited by the environment or by your cognitive abilities, your freewill is limited proportionally.

If you can force a Psychopath to behave according to Gods Law, you can’t change his "heart" (motivation), because he is born that way and there is no known therapy to counteract it. There is no way to get him to feel love or loyalty to God so from the start, the biblical mechanism for redemption for the psychopath is flawed. There is no scriptural mechanism for the salvation of the psychopath.

A popular rebuttal to this problem is that God can save anyone he chooses to through his grace. He will save those that are incapable of understanding that allegedly Jesus sacrifice on the cross was their way to salvation. There are several problems with that view.

First, typically Evangelicals, believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin, that we are born into sin such as described by David in Psalm 51:5. We do not need to learn how to sin, it comes naturally through Adams sin. Only learning about Jesus and believing saves you. Jesus was the Second Adam. Non-Evangelicals will point to an interpretation about Davids baby and a belief that god will do the right thing. However nowhere is this problem specifically addressed in the Bible. Scriptural evidence better supports the assertion that they are not saved.

Second, non-Evangelicals believe that passages such as 1 Cor 7:14 can be interpreted that children will be saved if they die before they can understand the Gospel. But the Evangelical understanding of that passage does not mean saved. It means being made ritually clean in the sense of Jewish law in the case that an believer marries an unbeliever. They are made ritually clean, and the marriage and children are acceptable to God, which is not the same thing and significantly less important than salvation.

Third. Romans 2:14 - 15 talks about the law written on our hearts. Commonly called "the law of conscience". It is a type of Universal Moral Law written on our hearts as a result of being made in Gods Image. It is independent of the saving grace of Jesus, it is enough to condemn however, and it supports the view of Original Sin.

Fourth, allegedly Jesus as the "the perfect sacrifice" was ultimately pleasing enough to god to forgive everyones sin and give them a fresh start. They are still born into sin but they the get the chance at salvation because of His sacrifice on the cross. Psychopaths are incapable of repentance or loyalty to God. However, since psychopaths exist, then that means the sacrifice while maybe technically perfect, wasn't effectively perfect.

Now with these premises in mind, lets discuss some outcomes.

If say that we don't know what god will do with babies and the psychopath, then we have fundamentally weakened the concept of the Atonement and Original Sin. It was supposed to be the way to salvation for everyone, a reconciliation with god.

So if Non-Evangelicals are right and we are qualified to say that God will do the right thing and save the 'incapable', it raises the question of "the right thing" by whose standards? Ours or His? I see this view as contradicting the Christian "Test" solution to the Problem of Evil/Suffering; that even the rape and murder of children work out for the greater good but we can't know how that happens, and also that good is defined by god and we can't understand that either, and that is why so many acts of god look evil to us. It undermines the idea that the Evil in the world is a test for us. If God can save anyone he wants, and the Psychopath, or the criminally insane can run around and do hideous things with no remorse and still get saved, then this view of salvation is terribly unfair. The freewill of the innocent, or not so innocent can be undermined by a sub-group of people that can do anything and still be saved. If we say that god will do the right thing in principle by saving babies and the psychopath then we have set a precedent to say that we are competent to judge when god would do the right thing. Using that warrant I will say that raping and murdering children is not the right thing and does not lead to the greater good therefore the Problem Or Evil cancels God out because a benevolent God should not permit that.

If we are going to say that god will not save the psychopath or baby, then most people would find that unconscionable, we can add to our list of Problem of Evil grievances, and we have fundamentally weakened the concept of the Atonement and Original Sin because it was supposed to be the way to salvation for everyone, a reconciliation with god.I think the problem of unsaved babies, and the psychopath, is an unhandled exception that halts the system.

Through research in psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and genetics it is becomingly increasingly clear that behavior is not only a matter of wanting to do the right thing, it depends on having an internal mechanism that supports it.

I used a podcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a basis for this article. The podcast was called “Inside the Mind of a Psychopath”. The reason I chose Psychopathy as the first topic for this series was because Psychopathy is clinically considered an emotional disorder that disrupts empathy. Psychopaths are not able to Love and therefore not able to follow the First Great Commandment from Matt. 22:37.

In the synopsis of the interviews that follow, the various researchers give their perspectives on Psychopathy.

Dr. Robert Hare says the psychopath is not what the media portrays. They are individuals that are intact but at the core, lack emotional concern or empathy for other people. They don’t understand that other people have rights. They don’t feel remorse or guilt. They lack a conscience and this can’t be explained in intellectual deficiency, psychosis, mental illness or brain damage.
Traits that make up a Psychopath are shared with Psychotic and Sociopathic personalities but some traits make them distinct from each other. Psychotic personalities are considered delusional, and Sociopathic personalities have the ability to feel remorse or guilt.

Psychopaths know exactly what they are doing but they just don’t care. Psychotics are not aware that what they are doing is wrong. The term Sociopath describes the “hardcore” criminal. Some psychopaths are also sociopaths, or hardcore criminals, but they don’t feel remorse.

Traits that collectively describe a Psychopath are a shallow emotional life, they are fairly superficial people, they use deceit to intimidate and control other people, they tend to be fairly dominant in controlling people, they have enormous sense of entitlement (they believe everything is due to them), they are fairly impulsive in a controlled sense, they lead a nomadic lifestyle, they commit a lot of irresponsible behavior, promiscuity, lying and they have a need for excitement. None of these traits individually warrant the diagnosis of psychopathy, but collectively they do. All these traits make up the personality of a person that would find it easy to violate social norms of behavior but not necessarily to the degree of criminality.

Dr. James Blair believes that psychopathy is an emotional disorder, comparable to depression and anxiety. He is convinced that their behavior is a result of the difference in how their brains work. Types of emotional learning are impaired. They don’t process emotional information properly. The way that emotions interact with attention to process objects in the environment, and the way that emotions interact with decision making is interrupted. They are not as good at recognizing facial expressions as non-psychopaths.

Some children exhibit psychopathic tendencies. Dr. Blair is performing MRI studies on them to see the differences in their brains. Children are less likely to have had strong environmental influences in their behavior. One of the tests is to recognize facial expressions. Children with psychopathic traits show a reduced response in the amygdala compared to children without psychopathic traits. The amygdala are also important in feeling fear. So it may explain why psychopaths are not afraid of getting caught if they commit a crime, and their apparent lack of conscience. If a person has trouble interpreting how someone else feels, it would be almost impossible to have empathy, and learn the difference between good and bad behavior.

Dr. Blair believes that since psychoapthy is an emotional disorder, and since emotional disorders respond well to pharmacological treatments, once the systems that cause psychopathy are understood, it is likely that it can be treated pharmacologically.

Dr. Essi Viding says that children with psychopathic traits differ from children with anti-social behavior. They lack empathy for people they offend and rarely feel bad about what they’ve done. Children with psychopathic traits will deliberately hurt other children especially if they are perceived as being weak or needing protection. Sometimes they will hurt other children for amusement and not feel bad about it. If they feel bad, they feel bad about getting caught. They usually blame others for their own actions, they can be cruel to animals and they seem to have a slightly odd emotional profile. They are superficially charming in an attempt to manipulate people to their own ends but don’t actually show sincere affection and can change their loyalties quickly. She conducted studies on twins that show that the traits are largely inherited. She and her colleague are planning to look for genetic markers in DNA to identify risk factors for psychopathy in the same way that certain gene combinations identify risk factors for heart disease.

Dr. Marnie Rice believes there is a genetic basis for psychopathy and believes that it was evolutionarily selected for. While she acknowledges that psychopathic behavior is outside the mean for average human behavior, she sees it not as a disorder but as a natural variation within the human genome. In some ways it made for an evolutionarily “fitter” person. She thinks psychopaths have evolved to fill an evolutionary niche. The only required behavior to make evolution work is to successfully pass on your genes. Promiscuity and lack of empathy are traits of psychopaths and this leads to mating and reproduction. They tend to start having sex earlier, and tend to move between partners frequently. Barring any inhibiting factors, psychopaths are likely to have more offspring than non psychopaths. Dr. Rice’s research into psychopathic sexual preferences show they are selectively interested in post-pubescent females. They are not as likely to be interested in the same sex or children. Psychopaths are most successful in environments where they can remain anonymous and jump from mate to mate. The city is a perfect place for that behavior.

Changing the behavior of psychopaths using typical therapy doesn’t work. Some traditional therapy makes them worse. After treatment they have a higher likelihood of repeating the offending behavior. They use what they learn in therapy to gain an advantage to increase the successful outcome of their subsequent behavior.

In summary, I repeat, if a psychopath can be forced to behave according to Gods Law, his motivation (“heart”) can’t change, because he is born that way and there is no known therapy to counteract it. There is no way to get him to feel love or loyalty to god so from the start, the biblical mechanism for redemption for the psychopath is flawed. There is no scriptural mechanism for the salvation of the psychopath.

REFERENCES

Atonement Theories and Cultural Understandings.
The Soul: A Rational Belief?
CBC Radio: Inside the mind of a psychopath (scroll down to the bottom of the page when you get there)
Wikipedia on Psychopathy
Dr. Hares webpage
Dr. Blairs webpage
Dr. Viding’s webpage
Dr. Rice’s book on this topic
The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy
Dr. Porters Webpage