The September 2009 issue of Discover magazine has an article addressing what it calls “Seven Deadly Sins.” We have previously addressed the fact that nowhere do they establish their basis for determining that anything is a sin, much less these seven acts. In this post we will begin to examine the seven sins, one by one, with Discover’s ideas versus what the Scriptures have to say.
At the root of this is the naturalism of the writers. They boil down all human behavior to mere chemical and physical actions and reactions. I find it interesting that these people would recoil at the doctrine of God’s exhaustive sovereignty over all human thoughts and actions (they would call it “fatalism” or “determinism” – saying that therefore man is not “free” to do what he wants spontaneously in time and space) while they do not even wince at their own brand of “fatalism,” whereby all our reactions are nothing more than what the neurons in our brain bouncing off each other cause us to do, and that we had no choice in the design or function of these neurons. For example, the article states that “the more social sins” (as opposed to those referred to as “more disagreeable forms of sin” – again, no basis for any of this is given. What makes certain “sins” “more disagreeable?” Do we vote on them? Form a task force and designate a committee? Just curious) “recruit the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), brain terrain just behind the forehead, which helps shape the awareness of self.” (page 49) What is “self?” If all are is a composite of molecules and physical “stuff,” how does one determine what “self” is? “Self” is something that enters the realm of the metaphysical and science, if truly “scientific,” can only work with what is physical and able to be dealt with empirically through evidence and experimentation.
On page 50, the writer quotes Adam Safron, a research consultant at Northwestern University, who says:
Many of these sins you could think of as virtues taken to the extreme.”
Again, we run into a problem: how does Mr. Safron arrive at a definition of “virtue?” Upon what basis is his statement made? Is his basis one that is universal? Or is it cultural? One that transcends time and culture? We don’t know.
Finally we arrive at the first sin discussed in the article: lust. No definition is given as to exactly what “lust” is. One would would think that terms should be defined, being a scientific presentation, no? But no effort is given to define just what “lust” is, so we are left to make our own decision, which is consistent, though, with the non-theistic worldview that says man is his own god anyway and makes up his own rules. Given that, Mr. Safron states, after a description of the parts of the brain involved, that “the most notable thing about lust is that it sets nearly the whole brain buzzing.” One need not know how to interpret an MRI to know that – all one needs to do is ask any red-blooded male who’s spent an hour on an American beach populated with scantily-dressed females – the male brain, at least (as the article states – it states the female brain is not as consumed by lust as the male brain is), becomes somewhat intently focused on the object of the lust. One need only ask the wives of these men as well, as they have smacked their husbands upside the head trying to get their attention after this occurs.
How to fix this? Here’s the fix:
As with other powerful impulses, we try to shut down arousal by calling upon the right superior frontal gyrus and right anterior cingulate gyrus.”
They state these areas “form a conscious self-regulatory system,” that “provides us with the evolutionarily unprecedented ability to control our own neural processing–a feat achieved by no other creature.”
Sound familiar? The idea of the self-manipulation of mind over any “errors in judgment” is nothing more than a form of Stoicism and that has been a heresy for over 2,000 years. It, again, does not address reality and denies the sinful nature that is a result of the Fall.
The Scripture would say that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and does not obey God’s law – indeed it cannot (paraphrase of Romans 8:7). The Shakers, with their position against procreation, and the Roman Catholic Church with its stand on priestly celibacy, both try to reduce the natural desire for sex in man to a denial of the physical act itself. The Scriptures, though, know that man will not totally conquer that desire – whether expressed appropriately or inappropriately – until he is glorified. The 
mind set on the Spirit (Rom. 8:9-10) can conquer sinful desires, and the reality is that man is more than just physical stuff – he is a being with a physical and a spiritual nature and those natures entail certain wants and desires that are not merely chemical reactions within one’s brain. Man has a will and a nature that gives him wants and desires and these are produced, ultimately, by his spirit. Once man’s spirit departs from his body at death, the desires of the body disappear. Hence the need to address “sin” from a spiritual perspective – not a merely physical one.
Our friends at Discover may think they can reprogram all the little human robots that they ultimately think we are to do what is “right.” Visions of Utopia have occurred in the past and failed miserably. Any visions of individual Utopia will fail as well because of man’s spiritual nature. Lust will remain in the mind of man as long as he has a spiritual nature. This is why we need a Savior to redeem us from these “sins.”
