THE NEUROLOGISTS WHO SUGGEST WE'RE BORN TO SIN
Sunday 31 January, 2010
UK
Science/Nature

FOCUS magazine cover
By Dee Pfeiffer
Need a reason to be naughty? In a lengthy article in the February edition of the BBC’s Focus magazine, the publication’s deputy editor Andy Ridgway suggests that we are all hard-wired to be sinful. Of course, as Christians, we readily acknowledge that we all fall short and that oft-quoted line in the Bible which says ‘all have sinned’ is generally accepted as fact. However, sinning because we are fallen creatures in need of salvation is a million miles away from the notion that we were built to sin from the outset.
The article details the findings by neurologists at Northwestern University in Illinois who are trying to find out what happens in our brains when we have feelings of lust. Scans show that in both men and women, the limbic system, buried deep inside our brains, fires up when we are watching something arousing. They assume that there’s an obvious evolutionary reason as to why we’d be hard-wired for lust, and that reason, they say, is because it encourages us to procreate and continue the species.
The reward circuitry in our brains also lights up when we eat, and again, according to the researchers, this is evidence of evolutionary logic, since eating keeps us alive. Of course, as the article acknowledges, eating itself isn’t a problem unless it turns into gluttony. Again, researchers suggest that because food was once scarce and hard to find, those conditions shaped our brains and set the standard for today.
Of course, there is a problem with such a theory, for brain activity alone does not and cannot prove a hard-wiring to sin. It simply shows that certain parts of the brain become more active when participating in certain activities. The adrenaline rush a thief experiences on stealing will inevitably create certain chemical reactions in the body and brain, but this in itself doesn’t prove that the thief was predisposed to sin.
Adam Safron, a research consultant at Northwestern University, also believes that sloth – or the tendency to be lazy – has its roots in evolutionary past. He says, “You never knew when your next big meal would be coming, so if you could, you’d rest.” Of course, much of what Safron is saying is absolutely true. When people had to fight for their next meal, it would have been wise to conserve energy. But he is mistaken in his assumption that such tendencies have been passed down, and that what was once a mechanism for survival has somehow morphed into modern-day laziness. And of course, as with most theories of this nature, it fails to take into account the millions of people who don’t fit into the mould. We’re not all lazy gluttons with a penchant for lustful behaviour!
And what of the not-so-pleasurable sins like envy? The article covers this too, quoting a study of male volunteers who were asked to read a description of a high-flyer with an attractive partner. In the study, when the volunteers read of this high-flyer, it provoked a reaction in the brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex, the same area of the brain involved in the processing of physical pain. The writers of the article assume that this again points to our brains being hard-wired to sin but, in fact, it simply shows that certain feelings lead to changes in brain patterns.
Then there’s pride. The piece details how, at Montclair State University just outside New York City, parts of volunteers’ brains were temporarily disabled using transcranial magnetic stimulation. The idea is that if you can stop a certain part of the brain from working, you can find out what it does. The volunteers have a magnetic coil around the head which has the effect of disrupting the brain cell activity.
Normally, the volunteer will think that they are a little better than they really are, saying things like, “I’m intelligent and my best friend is not,” but when the coil is switched on, it disrupts the neural mechanism and their pride is switched off.
Interestingly, the study shows that self-deprecation originates in the same area as arrogance and pride. However, as fascinating as it is to study the brain and to find out which parts are stimulated in certain situations, it does not prove that we are hard-wired to sin. In fact, any study that messes with the brain is sure to produce results, but such results cannot be applied to our everyday life outside of the laboratory.
As for wrath, scientists at the University of New South Wales in Australia hurled abuse at volunteers in a brain scanner to see what would happen when they got angry. In the brooding types, rather than those with a short fuse, the medial prefrontal cortext, a region involved in moderating behaviour, quickly fired into action. This suggests on the surface that some people’s brains are simply wired to get angry and, certainly, we cannot deny that some people are more prone to anger than others, but does this mean we are wired into it and that it cannot be modified? This would fly in the face of much evidence collected by anger management courses which suggests that it is our surroundings, upbringing and environment that ultimately dictates how we handle things.
In fact, when it comes to greed, the writers acknowledge that there are no brain studies that provide us with any answers. “The mechanics of greed may be more complicated,” says Safron. “There are some things which are universal, and greed may be one of those things,” he continues. But while the Western world is increasingly prone to greed, could those in the Third World who crave for little more than sustenance to get through each day be classed as greedy? Of course not.
Our society, not our brain, creates in some people a craving for material goods, wealth and success. Again though, the fact that different cravings and desires manifest in different people suggests that each one of us has our own different personality and burdens to bear, relative to our genetic make-up and our personal history and surroundings. In addition to this, some are able to break free from sin’s grip on their lives by determinedly following a strict spiritual path. Such studies cannot explain how we overcome sin.
How much of our behaviour is shaped by what happens in our brains and how much is shaped by our environment and past experiences is still open to debate, but one thing is for sure – there are many reformed people in our society: former porn addicts, those whose anger once controlled their lives, and people who through determination or circumstance have successfully conquered greed, sloth, gluttony and pride. Many attribute such reforms to a change in their moral outlook, and in particular, to God. They have the same brains, they are the same people, yet they have conquered their demons in a way that the studies mentioned above cannot account for.
Instead of inspiring us to be the best we can be, the ‘blame it on the brain’ theories in fact encourage the opposite, for they offer an easy get-out clause for anyone caught in the clutches of sinful behaviour.
Photo: Used with Permission
Debby Wimberley wrote:
I believe we are inclined to sin as that is the nature of man after the fall in Eden. The redeeming factor is the sacrifice of Christ who gave his life for the redemption of man.
I believe God gives free will and with that we are to choose well with the moral guidelines of the 10 commandments. No man can lived up to all of them on his own merit but with the help of God through knowledge of the Bible, teaching by parents and the church, our own commitment to the voice of the conscience, we can do our best to live in accordance with God’s principles that will steer our ship to safe harbor.
Randy Heffner wrote:
Very nice, Dee. As you discuss throughout, Ridgway’s scientists appear to have confused correlation and causality, besides which they appear to have ignored the fact that not all people behave as their supposedly pre-wired brains would have them do. I think science does great things, yet it seems to me that Ridgway’s scientists don’t recognize the epistemological limits of science.
You pose the possibility of spiritual intervention between supposed brain-wired cause and sinful effect. Such considerations are off-limits for most scientists. In response to the question, “Is there a metaphysical realm?” the philosophy of modern science is, roughly, “If the metaphysical exists, it can’t be proven, so we will act as though it does not exist.” This is reasonable, to a degree, yet it becomes a problem when it results in the confusion of correlation and causality.
By assuming away the metaphysical and proceeding with their philosophy that purely physical explanations can account for all the data, Ridgway’s scientists assume physical causality when more likely they have found mere correlation. They seem to have short-circuited rigorous science, drawing conclusions prematurely. They would have been more faithful to scientific truth to have simply stopped with a statement of correlation.
Having established the correlation scientifically, they might then do two things. First, pose further physical questions aiming to find an experiment, if there is one, that might truly establish causality. Second, reflect on the curious observation that (as Ridgway recognizes), despite the correlation between eating and certain brain functions, eating does not always turn into gluttony. If our brains are hard-wired for gluttony, why is gluttony not a universal trait? Could there be something metaphysical, like the human spirit, that intervenes between supposed cause and effect? The more difficulty our science has proving physical causality, the more it perhaps ought to bravely stop at the edges of the mystery of this life rather than assuming it away.
There’s some other interesting discussion on (a later version of) the article over at Qideas:
http://www.qideas.org/blog/born-to-sin.aspx
Kevin Yates wrote:
Superb article. What a timely reminder for Christians to remember that although they are creatures of evolution and thus possess certain desires, that God has ensured that humanity has evolved a consciousness that can make moral choices. It is up to mankind to make that choice between being a slave to desire and being free, to choose God over predetermined instincts.
CHARLOTTE WINDLEY wrote:
It is nature versus nurture - that is why we have social laws of conduct and faith!
Pippa wrote:
‘Why nature wants you to be bad’ - in other words we are bound to be bad in order to exist.
This is not a very helpful view of life and your thoughtful and sensitive deconstruction of their arguments from a Christian standpoint really ought to have been printed alongside that article Dee.
Muriel Anderson wrote:
Well said, Neville. When we’re born again we do begin to change: but this is almost impossible on our own - thank God that His Holy Spirit can change us, from what we once were, into what God always intended we should be. One very important hallmark of a Christian is evidence of a changed life.
Margaret wrote:
I thought your article was going to say that he backs up the Bible. Original sin does surely suggest that since Adam and Eve’s fall we DO have inbuilt sin. We spend a lifetime learning to overcome it and move from Romans 7 to Romans 8!
Neville Heath Fowler wrote:
Well it makes a change for evolutionists to even admit the existence of something called ‘sin’, though of course they are doing so only in order to explain it away in evolutionary terms and thus make it appear to be ‘not sin’. Yet in a way they are confirming the existence of what theologians have termed ‘original sin’, the predisposition to sin inherited from our first parents because of their sin.
What their ‘science’ will not tell them is that God can overcome that predisposition or tendency when we trust in Christ, are born again, and receive the influence of God’s Holy Spirit into our lives. There is plenty of evidence that this is so but I don’t suppose they will be interested in researching it.
Thanks for another very interesting article.

Comment on this article
Please Note: All comments will be subject to moderation before showing up on the page, subject to approval.If you would prefer to discuss the issue in more depth and interaction, try the new forum here.