What you discuss is not dissimilar from Donald Campbell's (1975) view as described in his presidential address to APA (Amer. Psychologist 30 (12) 1103-1126). In that paper "On the Conflicts between Biological and Social Evolution and between Psychology and Moral Tradition) he argues that psychologists have erred by considering guilt as a maladaptive neurotic reaction. If guilt is the flip side of sin then we're talking about the same thing.
The problem with sin, of course, is that it is one of those "blame the patient" concepts. It implies the existence of free will. If the person uses his free will badly, we say he has sinned. But psychologists need to be looking at the antecedent causes of behavior. I'm enough of a behaviorist to consider "free will" (and therefore "sin") as mental fiction that serve as smoke screens for ignorance of the real causes. That being said, I think the concept of sin is useful in the lay vocabulary. It makes sense to treat people AS THOUGH they have free. This involves the application of rewards and punishments and as a practical matter is quite sensible. But as scientists looking to not only alter behavior but to understand its antecedent conditions, the concept of sin is useless. Ed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Graduate Coordinator, Holocaust and Genocide Studies Department of Psychology, West Chester Univ. of Pennsylvania ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and herpetoculturist ( http://www.adcham.com) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
