Some time ago, I ordered a book that my oldest brother told me about.
Called “The Biology of Sin,” it is a book written by Dr. Mathew Stanford, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University. In it, Dr. Stanford discusses sinful behaviors – adultery, rage, addiction, and homosexuality – asking, What does science say, and what does the Bible say about this behavior? He then goes on in an attempt to reconcile the fact that biological predispositions play a role in behavior which the Bible calls sinful.
It is an interesting discussion, whether there might be biological predisposition for sinful behavior. I’m always reminded of the story of former Ohio State and NFL quarterback Art Schlichter, who literally gambled away his football career because of his compulsive gambling streak, a problem that led to his being sentenced to federal prison for stealing thousands of dollars to keep gambling.
At some point in his story, Schlichter was diagnosed as having an addiction, and gave a tearful interview in which he said something to the effect of, “I’m so thankful to learn it’s a sickness. I thought I was just a loser!”
In our efforts to study human behavior, we have come across all kinds of biological and genetic predisposition that helps us understand our behavior. Alcoholism, gambling, sex, lying, stealing … recently, I met with someone involved in genetic research going on at the UAB Medical Center in Birmingham who told me they think that many people who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may be genetically predisposed to PTSD.
In that meeting, I jokingly said, “maybe we’re about to determine the answer to the theological question of free will vs. predestination.”
And then a few days later, I picked up a weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal and found a column titled, “Does Belief in Free Will Make Us More Ethical? A new paper on the surprising effect of social and political context” https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-belief-in-free-will-make-us-more-ethical-1504192905
The piece refers to a study from 2016, in which participants were given readings informing them that recent advances in neuroscience “cast doubt on the concept of free will.” Upon reading this information, these people tended to become more dishonest in certain situations.
Even more, it was determined that “how much we believe in free will also influences our judgments about how others behave: The more that people believe humans can choose what they do, the more they advocate harsh punishment for criminals.”
It’s a fascinating study that seems to bear out the idea that we will hold ourselves and others to higher standards of behavior if we honestly believe we have a choice, but if we believe we’re “wired” a certain way, we’re more likely to accept our own behavior that we might formerly have called “bad” as inevitable. As the old 1960s comedian Flip Wilson famously said, “The devil made me do it.” Only in this case, the ‘devil’ is our genetic code.
There are heated discussions every day about the conflict between science and faith, and the core is over what causes our sinful behavior, and what does “sin” look like if there are biological predispositions that “explain” our sin.
On the one hand, it is fascinating. Like Art Schlichter, who wouldn’t want to feel that I’m not blame for my bad habits that I can’t seem to break, because I’m “born this way” (to quote that noted thinker Lady Gaga)! You can’t really hold me accountable for my genetic code since I had nothing to do with it. If I lie, steal, cheat, engage in culturally unacceptable sexual behavior (if there is such a thing anymore), and it turns out my biology says I’m predisposed to such behavior, am I really to blame?
On the other hand, I believe sin nature is real. From the beginning – from the Garden of Eden, if you will – man’s genetic code and DNA has been gradually devolving, as disruptions and imperfect genes are introduced, mixed, broken down, etc., like royal families who constantly inbred.
But my predisposition to sin, particularly my predisposition to a particular sin, is not an excuse to continue in that sin. If anything, it’s just that much of a greater challenge to me to be aware of that predisposition, stay on guard, and avoid the temptation.
Is it fair? By that I mean, how can it be fair that my wife, for example, seems to be incapable of telling a lie – in fact, would never think of telling a lie even when perhaps a “little white lie” might seem preferable – while it seems my first reaction to any uncomfortable situation seems to be figuring out a way to say something to avoid the unpleasantness (in other words, lying)? She doesn’t understand my struggle, and in fact may look down on those of us who struggle with the truth because to her it doesn’t make any sense not to tell the truth, knowing life is much simpler and less complicated if we just tell the truth and address uncomfortable situations head-on. But if I’m predisposed to avoiding the truth, then what right does she have to be judgmental since she can’t possibly understand the internal struggle that may be part of my genetic and biological make-up?
No, it’s not fair. But as Scar, the brother who wanted to be king in the movie “The Lion King,’’ so eloquently said, “Life’s not fair. If it were, I would be king!”
If you believe in biology and genetics, then perhaps we shouldn’t judge Scar too harshly for arranging the death of his brother and the exile of his nephew in order for Scar to becoming king.
I’m serious, sort of.
I still believe in free will. I still believe that we have the ability, despite our genetic or biological or scientific predispositions, to just say “no.” It’s tougher for some of us in certain situations, and we need to understand that and be sympathetic about that. I honestly don’t know what you struggle with, any more than you understand my struggles. But I do know we both have struggles. We are, after all, human. And when sin entered the world, so did our struggle to do the “right” thing.
If anything, perhaps this science of predisposition simply reinforces our basic Christian tenant of looking at the log in our own eye before we start on the speck in the eye of our brother (Matthew 7:3-5). That doesn’t mean we ignore the speck in our brothers’ eye – that verse does end with the instructions to “First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.” (Emphasis added).
We still have to deal with each other’s problems. But first, let’s be honest about our own and seek whatever help we need to deal with those as well.
There is a difference between ignoring something and compassion. It’s not compassion to ignore behavior in someone else that may lead to their injury or destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment