Sin And The Human Brain

A number of years ago I heard a comment that goes against common understanding—sin distorts Mankind’s thinking.

Most people agree that nobody’s perfect, but by this they mean, nobody lives a morally upright life all the time; nobody avoids making mistakes. The one thing that most people do NOT mean is that their thinking is flawed.

Rather, I suspect most people believe mankind’s ability to reason has become sharper over time, that we are out from under superstition and have honed deductive reasoning, can study evidence and make inferences more accurately than those who first lived on earth.

But why should that be true? If we believe the Bible, we know a few things about the earth before and after sin progressively took hold (some of these things became evident after the flood).

    1. Before – animals were not carnivorous (Gen. 1:30). After – even Man became carnivorous.
    2. Before – animals were at peace with each other and with Man. After – “The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given” (Gen. 9:2).
    3. Before – the ground yielded fruit abundantly. After – the ground was cursed and needed to be cultivated by the sweat of Man’s brow.
    4. Before – Man was destined to life. After – Man was destined to death.
    5. Before – Man apparently had the capacity to communicate with the animals. After – animals only communicated with Man when God opened their mouths (see Balaam’s donkey).
    6. Before – an “expanse” divided waters, some above, some below–apparently creating another layer of our atmosphere and providing protection from the molten lava at the earth’s core. After – the “floodgates of the sky” opened and “the fountains of the great deep burst open.”
    7. Before – Man lived for centuries. After – once the atmospheric protection was removed, his life span became much shorter.
    8. Before – Man communed in person with God. After – Man hid from God.
    9. Before – Adam and Eve were a perfect fit, naked and unashamed. After – they hurled accusations at one another.
    10. Before – Man spoke a common language. After – God confused Men’s language and scattered them.

I could go on, but I think I’ve said enough for the purpose of this post. To sum up, sin changed the world, the heavens, the way Mankind relates to creation, to God, to others. Why would we think Man alone is untouched by the effects of sin? We know his life span was affected, so why not other aspects of his life, such as his ability to comprehend the supernatural or to reason clearly?

I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that Mankind, with all the knowledge available to us, understands less about the world today than Adam did. Oh, sure, we know facts (and many of those prove to be incorrect at some later date), but we are reasoning ourselves away from God, not to Him.

Take a look, for example, at the poll at Mike Duran’s site about science and Scripture. I find it interesting that a majority of those participating did not want to stand up and say God’s Word trumps Man’s observation and reasoning (which is what science is).

It was, as a matter of fact, Man’s observation and reasoning—well, woman’s, actually—that started the Fall in the first place: “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” (emphasis mine)

God had said … but she saw, and she went with her own observations and conclusions. In that respect, things haven’t changed so much over time.

– – – – –

This post is an undated version of one that appeared here in August 2012.

Published in: on August 6, 2018 at 5:42 pm  Comments (14)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

14 Comments

  1. Enjoyed this, Becky. The bible says “lean not into your own understanding,” but also, “your heart is wicked, who can know it?” So basically we are just burnt toast!

    I sometimes point our how flawed our reasoning can be. We actually can rational-lies anything. In the post modern Western world especially, we have kind of made idols out of our own capacity for reason, almost as if we have forgotten that our brains were impacted by the fall, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I believe you have claim to have some scientific knowledge Becky, therefore I will not comment so much on your post except to say I am quite sure life is far more biological and technical than what you claim about the world so maybe you can try and understand the reality at these sites.

    Like

    • Steve, I edited out all those links, which was why your comment went to moderation. I’ve said in the past to others that my site is not a place they can simply dump their false teaching. The same goes for the atheist philosophy. You have no knowledge of what transpired in ancient history, just supposition and guess work, which I will not have stand here as if it is proved and known fact. It isn’t.

      Becky

      Like

      • Of course, Becky, scientific facts and the actual real historic evidence are obviously not supportive of your beliefs.

        I expect the Bible is the only book you believe as able to explain history, science, life and the nature of everything, therefore it is natural for you to consider science is simply a bunch of lies and false teaching and have views that humanity should base their lives and futures solely on the teachings of the Bible rather than on man.

        What do you think about the scientific developments when you need medication or surgery, watch your TV, tap on your keyboard, microwave your food and take a drive to the shops? Our whole lives are based on science, these modern innovations are not the results of lies and false teaching.

        The rejection of science has become another conspiracy since modern science has answered the questions that the Bible cannot answer. This conspiracy has become as common as people who believe the Earth is flat, the moon landing and holocaust deniers, UFO abductees’, apocalyptic doomsday predictors and the young Earth believers (that likely also includes yourself) and all these are based on nothing but faith with much evidence to the contrary.

        The reality, truth and indisputable evidence based facts about most things on our Earth are identified and directly in front of us all, but you blatantly refuse to open your eyes. I am not asking you to believe anything on faith as you would ask me to do and considering you are in the later years of life as I am, I would not leave it to late to open those eyes really wide Becky.

        Like

        • Steve, since no one was there to make scientific observation, there are no pertinent “scientific facts” and you repeatedly refuse to read the best historical documentation, so you really have nothing helpful to say. Those links only provide your propaganda, and this blog is not a public signboard where people can simply dump their false ideas. I am happy to discuss those open to reason and truth, but someone who criticizes the conclusions of the Bible without actually being willing to read the Bible is not reasonable. That is a hand-in-you-face way of saying, My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with truth.

          I have never—emphasis on NEVER—said science is a bunch of lies. It is the conclusion of those who won’t even consider that God exists that I reject.Not science. The perfect example is the very clear, scientific, observable evidence from Mt. Saint Helen that certainly calls into question some of the conclusions evolutionists have made, but you simply counter that by posting links that contain more of the erroneous conclusions, not based on observable fact. And yet you persist in saying falsely that I call science lies. No, Steve, it is you who are lying about me.

          Again, your lack of reasoning is astounding. If someone knows a fact, and someone else has an idea of what might have happened, should I agree with the one who knows or with the one who has an idea? Really, this is not rocket science. I’ll go with the One who knows, every time.

          Again you repeat the “The rejection of science” lie. I don’t, Christians don’t, Christianity doesn’t reject science. Much of modern science exists because of the work of Christians as far back as a hundred years ago, but you undoubtedly don’t know this because you are caught up in this lie that science and faith are somehow at odds. THEY ARE NOT! The only things at odds with Christianity are the false conclusions that make no room for God because they have ruled Him out ahead of time.

          As it happens, I’m thankful for technology, but you wouldn’t know this because you believe a lie about me.

          “I am not asking you to believe anything on faith as you would ask me to do”. Steve, you are deluded. You still think “faith” means blind wishful thinking, unsupported by evidence. Just because you don’t believe the evidence I have repeatedly brought forward, don’t think there is no evidence for the truth contained in the Bible. And you are so misguided to think that you do not have faith of your own. Let me ask you, what was the last scientific experiment YOU personally conducted to verify evolution? I can ask that, confident that you will say, I’ve never conducted such an experiment, if you answer honestly. Instead, you BELIEVE those who have concluded that science points to evolution. That’s your faith. That you can’t see this is very, very sad. You are deluded, fooled into thinking you are wise and all knowing when if fact you are just taking the word of men, who don’t know because they weren’t there.

          Sorry, Steve, I’m not the one who has the need to open his eyes.

          Becky

          Like

          • “Steve, since no one was there to make scientific observation, there are no pertinent “scientific facts”

            Oh, come on Becky, can you observe God, were you there when the Bible was written, and did you observe Jesus walking on water or doing anything claimed from your ancient holly science and history book?

            Surely you believe the planet is a sphere that rotates as it orbits the sun even though you cannot physically see any of it but many in your life time have.

            I believe in evolutionary principles because over 150 years more evidence for biological evolution has been discovered through many branches of science than the evidence against it. There have also been numerous scientists retest the many hypotheses that make up the principles of evolution, however the evidence has consolidated and become much stronger over the last few decades. In fact, today evolutionary principles are used as the basis of understanding biology, medicines and human health and that is a scientific reality that impacts on all of us.

            “Much of modern science exists because of the work of Christians as far back as a hundred years ago, but you undoubtedly don’t know this because you are caught up in this lie that science and faith are somehow at odds.”

            I understand and agree that early Christians were much in the forefront of science for many decades, however that eventually came to an end when science advanced to a level that revealed that the existence of life may not have included any such God. We have moved much further today and some Christians outrightly claim science to be a fraud, some embrace what they like, and some Christians like yourself try to fit science into the same pocket as religious ideology.

            This science and religious partnership cannot work considering you believe unscientific events such as man lived for centuries, animals were not carnivorous, the flood, Adam and Eve etc.

            Science is quite the opposite to faith, science will investigate, experiment and try to prove the hypothesis is either right or wrong and it will still be tested by other scientists and will forever always be subject to change and adjustments as progress is made, whereas your faithful beliefs are fixed in an ideology and will never be changed but then you selfishly claim science makes “false conclusions that make no room for God”. You cannot have it both ways Becky.

            Mt. Saint Helen may call into question some scientific results as you have stated, however it does not mean science is false, or scientists are purposely misleading anybody. To think that way would mean you are lending to some sort of conspiracy.

            “Steve, you are deluded. You still think “faith” means blind wishful thinking, unsupported by evidence.”

            Well yes I do, because the dictionaries for “faith” state:
            complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

            “what was the last scientific experiment YOU personally conducted to verify evolution?”

            I am not a scientist with the appropriate resources and there are many thousands of the worlds smartest scientific people who have done multitudes of experiments in their fields of expertise and I believe these qualified people just as I believe the world is a sphere without actually traveling into space.

            “Instead, you BELIEVE those who have concluded that science points to evolution. That’s your faith.”

            No Becky, I say again that evolution has 150 years of evidence from rigorous testing and my acceptance of it has gone past the trust, confidence and faith mode into the indisputable facts of our world category.

            Like

          • ” some Christians outrightly claim science to be a fraud.” Name one, Steve. No, not some random name you find from Google. Someone you have read,

            You are just so indoctrinated, you believe whatever the evolutionists tell you!

            I don’t “try” to fit science with faith. There is no “trying.” I’ll say again, and maybe one of these times it will stick. Christianity and science are not at odds. It is the conclusions of atheists with which I disagree. You start with a disbelief in God, say you arrived at that scientifically, then claim to have truth. But that approach is not even good science. It’s not science at all because you rule out an option before you even test your hypothesis.

            Seriously, Steve, the Biblical record is the best historical record we have for ancient times, but you want to ignore it. Good science? Truthful investigation? Not really.

            NO, once again you have twisted my words, Steve. I did not say “science makes ‘false conclusions that make no room for God’ ”. You really do want that to be my position, I get that. But you ARE WRONG. I do not believe that, have not said that. That is your perception of what I believe. It is the erroneous and false CONCLUSIONS of those who do not believe in God that I reject, that I will call out as false and biased. Yes, biased. You and those like you who won’t even read the Bible are simply biased. You don’t understand faith and yet you say faith and science can’t co-exist. You are so blinded by your false beliefs that you swallow based on whatever your current flavor of atheistic evolutionist is.

            Steve, give me one instance of research or observation of one specie evolving into another specie. I don’t mean one bird developing longer tail feathers or something. Evolutionists can call such things a change of species but that’s what I mean about not accepting their conclusions! The fact is, you have no real evidence for what you call fact and you pat yourself on the back saying you are so superior because you are willing to change your conclusions because you are all so honest and seeking what is true.; But nothing could be further from the truth. Admit it, Steve. You won’t even read the Bible, so how open and honest are you, really?

            Becky

            Like

  3. “some Christians outrightly claim science to be a fraud.” Name one, Steve. No, not some random name you find from Google. Someone you have read.”

    I do not know any personally Becky, however they are out there because I have blogged some of them. More fittingly they are called the antiscience people as described below.

    “Antiscience is a position that rejects science and the scientific method.” “A frequent basis of antiscientific sentiment is religious theism with literal interpretations of sacred text. Here, scientific theories that conflict with what is considered divinely-inspired knowledge are regarded as flawed. Over the centuries religious institutions have been hesitant to embrace such ideas as heliocentrism and planetary motion because they contradicted the dominant understanding of various passages of scripture. More recently the body of creation theologies known collectively as creationism, including the teleological theory of intelligent design, have been promoted by religious theists in response to the process of evolution by natural selection.” (ref Wikipedia)

    “You start with a disbelief in God, say you arrived at that scientifically, then claim to have truth. But that approach is not even good science. It’s not science at all because you rule out an option before you even test your hypothesis.”

    The reason I do not believe in God is because the limited evidence available. The starting point for a hypothesis comes basically from an ancient scripture that claims God exists and the claims have been tested by scientists as far as it is possible.

    “A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.” (ref Wikipedia)

    If you have evidence that has not been tested please enlighten the scientific communities.

    “Seriously, Steve, the Biblical record is the best historical record we have for ancient times,”

    Seriously, Becky, this is untrue, and clearly this is an issue of many debates, sure it is historic, however it has been adjusted, changed and added to over the centuries so much so that it has been summed-up as “A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition” and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts.

    “I did not say “science makes ‘false conclusions that make no room for God’ “I do not believe that, have not said that.”

    I think you are mistaken check your comment on August 8, 2018 at 9:53 am it states: “because you are caught up in this lie that science and faith are somehow at odds. THEY ARE NOT! The only things at odds with Christianity are the false conclusions that make no room for God because they have ruled Him out ahead of time.”

    I have only quoted scientific views that come from scientists not conclusions.

    “It is the erroneous and false CONCLUSIONS of those who do not believe in God that I reject, that I will call out as false and biased.”

    I have no false conclusions when science has the evidence and I decide that science is correct because of the facts, whereas Christianity is based solely on an ancient scripture and untold faith. I may appear biased in your indoctrinated mind just as you appear to be biased to the indoctrinated mind of a Jew, Muslim or Hindu.

    “Evolutionists can call such things a change of species but that’s what I mean about not accepting their conclusions! The fact is, you have no real evidence for what you call fact”

    Becky, all creditable scientists accept evolution, it is a fact, it is as real as child birth, it is as real as photosynthesis and the sun, it is as real as death, what more can I say? Do not take my word for it investigate for yourself.

    “Admit it, Steve. You won’t even read the Bible, so how open and honest are you, really?”

    Many atheists and even some ex-Christians who have said they have read it cover to cover say it is not a good book to try and understand, it is contradictory, violent and even with the loving parts it motivates one to become or remain an atheist. I agree with them because as I have said I was a Sunday school kid and I had a step mother and a father who were Christians, therefore I had heard and read enough passages from the Bible to make a decision on what Christianity means to me.

    Like

    • Steve, I can’t believe you persist in your blind state. You refuse to do any honest research yourself. You don’t know any personally who hold the positions you claim, but you are insistent that they are out there. They must be because you read it on the internet!

      I’m not talking about theists, Steve. I’m talking about Christians. I am sure that there are theists who reject science, I’m guessing there are even pretend Christians who reject science or who did so in the past. But you are in error to think that is a tenet of our faith. It simply isn’t. And those who understand and believe the Bible have no trouble resolving faith and science. They simply are not in conflict. But you continue to preach your false assumptions because you don’t know any Christians, apparently, and don’t read the Bible.

      //Seriously, Becky, this is untrue, and clearly this is an issue of many debates, sure it is historic, however it has been adjusted, changed and added to over the centuries// Steve, this shows how you are merely taking the word of those who oppose the Bible and are not doing any actual research. Here are some facts you should know so you don’t continue to repeat this nonsense. I’m quoting from Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.

      “The best estimate today is that among New Testament manuscripts there are about four hundred thousand textual differences.”

      “More than 70 percent of all textual variants are mere spelling differences that affect nothing.”

      “Then there are the variants that involve synonyms, such as between ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ.’ The meaning is the same.”

      “Then there are variants that . . . are not viable . . . because of the poor pedigree of the manuscripts they are found in (usually few or very late manuscripts), no plausible case can be given for them reflecting the wording of the original. Remarkably, less that 1 percent of all textual variants are both meaningful and viable.” (emphasis mine)

      “An example of a meaningful and viable variant is ‘616’ (instead of ‘666’) for the number of the beast in Revelations 13:18.”

      “No doctrines are impacted by these variants . . . they do not in the slightest jeopardize a cardinal tenet of the Christian faith.”

      In short, scholarship shows how false the statement you made actually is.

      //I think you are mistaken check your comment on August 8, 2018 at 9:53 am it states: “because you are caught up in this lie that science and faith are somehow at odds. THEY ARE NOT! The only things at odds with Christianity are the false conclusions that make no room for God because they have ruled Him out ahead of time.// Sorry, Steve, but I stand by this comment. It is not science that makes conclusions as you stated. That’s absurd. Science is nothing more than observation and repetitious experimentation. It’s atheists who reach these erroneous conclusions. If it was science, then even Christians who study science would agree. But as I showed you in that Mt. Saint Helen video clip, educated, knowledgeable, careful researchers with a belief in the Bible come up with very different conclusions. How many times are you going to ignore this, Steve? I mean, this is really bizarre—to believe someone’s theory about what happened long ago rather than what scientists can observe taking place in our lifetime. That’s not good science, not good reasoning. It is pure bias, trusting in preconceived ideas and conclusions that somehow fit your worldview better than actual science.

      // I decide that science is correct because of the facts,// Another strange idea, Steve. Of course there is someone interpreting the data! I mean, you really think the science just flashes a sign that says “evolution”? Not even close. People who you trust have come up with these notions and you call them facts. The fact might be that such and such a fossil exists, but that doesn’t “prove” what your evolutionary theory says.

      Steve, I have posted videos from “credible scientists” who do NOT accept evolution. You are reserving the right to decide for yourself, and therein is the real problem. You cannot yield control of even the existence of the universe to God. You want to believe it was an accident, though the probability of such is in the realm of the impossible. You are simply blind to reality. And no matter whether someone says they’ve read the Bible or not, your “agreement with them” is irrelevant. I don’t care what you think you know from what people have told you or what you think you know from the few passages you’ve read. You Do NOT Know and CANNOT know unless you actually do the work yourself. Otherwise you are just exercising your faith in what others have told you to think.

      Becky

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am sorry Becky that your faith restricts your judgement, and in fact what you have written is a ramble of disorganised justification for your faith.

        You have more than confirmed that you hold science in contempt but try very hard to disguise this, however you will condemn 150 years of scientific research over one or two You Tube videos made by creationists speaks volumes as to your level of understanding and where your head is at.

        I cannot help you to understand what you do not want to hear, you are in fact fanatical in your views and I guess you will have to wait for what are the mythical events of your faith to play out, but the most unfortunate and sad part I see about this is that eventually your real death on Earth will come and you will never see your Lords coming and you expect an eternal life in a land of human fantasy.

        Like

        • Seriously, Steve? You are now calling me a liar? That’s just mean and uncalled for. I have told you and told you and told you, I do not hold science in contempt. How dare you claim that I do? You simply don’t know, other than the fact that I disagree with you and the conclusions of other atheists. NEWS FLASH: Atheists don’t own science. Atheists can be wrong. And clearly you are on many points, but also on your conclusions based on science.

          So you can put up links to atheist articles, but when I post a video that shows actual science somehow you find a way to belittle the evidence? As I’ve said, poor research. Poor logic. Poor understanding. You simply insist on believing what you believe in the face of statements and research and science to the contrary.

          Yes, my death will one day occur, though Christ may return before that day. Hardly sad, however. I’m with the Apostle Paul: To me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. In what way is the death of a Christian sad to you, Steve. If there is eternal life with Christ, we will be exceedingly happy, but if you are right (which you are not) then we would just be dead like any other person. What would you care and what would we have lost?

          But see, there actually is a thing called truth, and Jesus has already risen from the dead, so there is no doubt that we have the hope of life eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord. The only sadness, Steve, is that those who don’t believe are choosing to be left out.

          Becky

          Liked by 1 person

          • “I do not hold science in contempt. How dare you claim that I do? You simply don’t know, other than the fact that I disagree with you and the conclusions of other atheists.”

            Seriously Becky, if you are calling into question what many atheists believe such as the biological evolutionary principles of life and the evidence provided by the worlds past and present most eminent and intelligent scientists who have been building evidence since the father of biology Aristotle the Greek philosopher in the 4th century BC, and considering you believe in the creationist values as against modern science does that not call into question your acceptance of scientific research and values?

            These are not conclusions, they are absolute facts and you will never see that, and I do understand why you are unable to do so.

            I did not reject your links; however, as I said, I am not going to change my views on anything due to a couple of You Tube videos just yet. If the mainstream scientists find reason to take notice and decide there is credibility in those ideas and test them I will as will the wider community definitely take notice. As I have said I accept the mainstream research, they have the knowhow and knowledge of hundreds of years in the support of what they do, rather than a few minority groups with an alternative agenda to pursue.

            “Steve. If there is eternal life with Christ, we will be exceedingly happy, but if you are right (which you are not) then we would just be dead like any other person. What would you care and what would we have lost?”

            The facts from a historical point of view have overwhelming evidence for many versions of many gods from many ancient cultures around the world due to man’s thirst for knowledge about the world he lived in. It is also true that superstitions of the spiritual world had taken root in the advanced minds of the first man about 2.5 million years ago and has always been a part of mans culture and continues to this day. Consider that even if a spiritual world, another dimension of life or maybe even alien intervention that we do not understand it does not make ancient man’s written word as evidence of any gods or deities.

            The idea of spending my entire life or what is left of it worshipping a god of any kind that can only be real in my mind and not of a physical or of a scientific reality and therefore of no real evidence is a devastatingly waste of time and a loss of mental autonomy in life.

            Like

          • Slowly, Steve, I’ll try to explain this once more. Science is observation of repeatable events. This evolution of which you speak has never been observed. NEVER!! It is merely a theory, a belief, a supposition that atheists have reached because they first ignore the possibility of any supernatural possibility. So yes, they look at evidence, and then make erroneous conclusions because they are not open to all the possibilities. You are not open to all the possibilities, either, Steve. It’s so ironic that you speak as if Christians are close-minded when in fact it is atheist who WILL NOT use logic and the most basic research tools (like reading the primary source available to them). Truly it’s astounding that you do not think these are conclusions when they can’t be repeated or observed. Yet you still hold to the mistaken idea that you are believing first rate proven science. Steve, your biases continue to show.

            //due to a couple of You Tube videos just yet. If the mainstream scientists find reason to take notice and decide there is credibility in those ideas and test them I will as will the wider community definitely take notice.// It’s all a matter of who do you believe. You will wait to jump on the bandwagon rather than, oh, I don’t know, use your own eyes . I mean, there is no dispute concerning the videos I’ve posted. Mt Saint Helens did recover when scientists said it couldn’t. The eruption and the aftermath did produce the canyon that hadn’t been there before. Peat is forming from the trees flooded by the melted snow waters. These are not in doubt. What is wrong with you that you would think some other scientists need to verify this? Just open your mind to the reality of what is happening. And as far as the other, that’s not in doubt either. It wasn’t even necessarily “religious” It was simply showing the complexity of the smallest part of DNA. Complexity that your scientists say happened by chance. All I’m saying is, that’s a conclusion that doesn’t hold up when studied under the lens of probability.

            These are the kinds of conclusions I’m talking about, Steve. Same facts, same science, different explanations. I am in a state of disbelief that you are clinging to the idea that your evolutionary theories, which you as much as admit, you only believe because the right number of “approved scientists” say so, are facts, not conclusions. You are that blind?

            Well, at last we come to the real issue. You want “mental autonomy in life,” meaning that you don’t want God telling you what to do. And that’s the real issue in all this, isn’t it, Steve. That’s why you resist reading even a portion of the Bible. Because you don’t want to give up your autonomy. It has noting to do with being hard to understand. The book of John which I suggested, is not hard to understand. The book of Romans, which I also recommended, has nothing to do with violence. You’re just unwilling to read the Bible because you’re afraid it will challenge your “mental autonomy.” Now I know where you’re coming from.

            Becky

            Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: