Genetics: Is That What's Behind Our Political Orientations?

In an intriguing op-ed in last Sunday's Denver Post. Greg Dobbs - former ABC News correspondent- advanced the hypothesis that "a gene, psychological characteristic or personality trait" could be behind our political orientations.  Dobbs' observes:

"My own parents, who my siblings  and I loved and respected, by and large politically were on the right, yet each of their kids ended up on the left. However, I know plenty of families where the kids turned out as their parents' political clones. And yet others where some ended up conservative and some not. That doesn't meant our politics are hereditary, but are they genetic?"

But here he appears to confuse issues, because surely if a trait is "genetic" it is also hereditary. Let us say, using Mendelian genetics, that conservative orientation constitutes a homozygous dominant allele (C) and liberal tendencies the homozygous recessive allele (c).  Then assume the gene  frequencies distribute as the population polling discloses - say indicating a 2:1 ratio of  conservatives to liberals in this country. Then for 200 randomly selected individuals, one would find the genotype frequencies distributed such that 100 are homozygous dominant (CC = diehard conservos), while 50 are heterozygous, e.g. Cc (moderates), and 50 are homozygous recessive (unabashed liberals) = cc = 50.

In my own family, my mother was liberal, dad generally conservative and the five offspring would be designated: 3 CC, 1 cc, and 1 Cc (sister). All the CC members served in the military (Army-Marines, Air Force, Navy) while the lone liberal (me) served in Peace Corps.   A serious genealogy trace has revealed conservatism strongly embedded in our (paternal) family tree going back at least eight generations.   For example, a particular great grandfather born in Rockingham County, Virginia emerged to become one of the most firebrand bible punchers amongst "the Brethren" that 1860s Kansas had ever seen.  Tracing forward the Brethren (and military) connections, as the family spread out to Missouri and Arkansas,  leads  to most of the conservatives fighting for the South in the Civil War.

Meanwhile, my maternal grandfather - who emigrated from Cabuna, Croatia in 1914,  was a dedicated liberal and also a conscientious objector. He detested war and refused entry into WWI - thereby alternatively fulfilling his service in a Wisconsin lumber camp. This choice delayed his application for U.S. citizenship, but eventually he obtained it.

Back to Dobbs' referenced research, including from the University of Nebraska, which found conservatives and liberals responding differently to assorted images (he didn't elaborate on the nature of the images) with conservatives "feeling more threatened" - leading me to suspect they were likely sexual images.

But this bifurcation of response isn't new. Back in 2013, a NY Times Sunday piece, 'A Formula for Happiness' (Sunday Review, p. 1, Dec. 15) noted :

"Conservative women are particularly blissful, about 40 percent report being 'very happy'. This makes them slightly happier than conservative men and liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men- only a fifth consider themselves very happy."

Which elicits the question, 'Why?'. But Dobb's researchers really ought not be that astonished since years earlier  the authors of the book Nature's Thumbprint had already made quite an argument for the case that not only can physical factors be inherited, but also psychological traits, and personality. Note the term "inherited" and they also discussed a possible genetic link.

Most noteworthy was Dobb's citation of a study done at University College, London, which examined the part of the brain (amygdala) that "lights up" on MRI imagery whenever we are anxious or scared.  The researchers found it was significantly larger in conservatives. As Dobbs adds:

"This would help explain conservatives' fears when it comes to guns, health care and Iran."

Thus, conservos are terrified of having the "government" seize all their guns - their amygdalas light up big time-  just as they do with the mention of ISIS or Iran, and "government health care".    They are also "dug in" when it comes to supporting the national security state and are vehemently against any conspiracies (e.g. JFK assassination) that implicate them, as exemplified by the vindictive behavior of Alabama-born, conservative disinformationist John McAdams.

Dobbs ends his piece by writing:

"The upshot of all this is maybe we are blessed at birth with our political proclivities"

Or, cursed!

The Bid to Adjust and Manage the Atavistic Brain

The atavistic brain was discussed years ago by neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his book,   The Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs.  Persinger's work was spurred to inception and completion by his notice of the regressive and atavistic component in many religiously inclined brains- especially those possessed by  avid fundamentalists.  He took care to distinguish this species, with their hellfire screeching and terrorist "witnessing" from the more laid back counterparts who, while they may have believed in the myth of personal Saviors and God-men, didn't try to foist it on others.

Persinger's work was motivated by a reality -based perception articulated in his biographical sketch in the same book:

"The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable."


This was remarkable in clearly stating why judgmental religiosity was a toxic meme, and futher, had to be stomped out. His experiments, wherein he stimulated subjects' temporal lobes to excite religious epiphenomena (using a specially designed helmet) further disclosed that the primary site for the problems were located in the brain. If one could attack these brain regions properly, such as in the temporal lobes, it might even be possible to eradicate all excessive religious zealotry.

This take was not new, since in his interview with Persinger, Jack Hitt noted:

"Persinger is not the first to theorize that the Creator exists only in the complex landscape of the human noggin. In his controversial 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes, a Princeton psychologist, argued that the brain activity of ancient people - those living roughly 3,500 years ago, prior to early evidence of consciousness such as logic, reason, and ethics - would have resembled that of modern schizophrenics"


Similarly, in a 1987 paper, (p. 137), Persinger boldly stated that:

"The God Experience is an artifact of transient changes in the temporal lobe”

Now, with the further development of quantum dot technology (see, e.g. 'The Quantum Dot: A Journey Into the Future of Microelectronics') we may well be on the cusp of controlling and regulating (at minimum) these atavistic brain tendencies which have produced everything from the Inquisition, to the Crusades, and even genocides. No human in his or her right mind could possibly dispute the fact that our species would be much better, operate more compassionately and perhaps even effectively in the social arena, if the brain could at least be subject to more regulation. At least the brains of those who need it.

The beauty of quantum dots is they can be specifically located in the exact brain regions where the most control is needed. If a feasible neural network mapping can be applied first, say to select input-output processing of hate and intolerance (as transmitted electro-chemical signals) in the brain's amygdala, is it not also possible to "disinfect" this tendency by altering the neural pathways and responses? Could the electro-chemical transfers effectively be cut off? Consider the most elemental input and output situation given by:


O o----------(e1)------(e2)------O (Z)


where e1 and e2 are two components by which an input at O yields a current (throughput)transferred to Z with information. The structure function of this would be: f(x1, x2) = x1*x2. But now suppose the component (e2) is negated or co-opted with another device. Then e2 = 0 and f(x1,x2) = 0. In other words the normal output one would expect is nullified.

We already know electro-chemical signals (via action potentials) are conveyed to  receptor neurons in the region of the amygdala. We note that when an axon is in its resting state it maintains a constant potential difference, or ‘resting membrane potential’ of –70 mV. When it is excited, it rises to a peak voltage of around 40 mV.  The latter basically arises from an uneven distribution of K+ (potassium) and Na+ (sodium) ions across the axon cell membrane relative to a collection of negatively charged protein molecules inside the cells.


Now, if neurons are stimulated – say by an electric shock from implants, an electronic monitoring device will show the 40 mV ‘action potentials’ on the traces. An interesting phenomenon associated with this, is that no matter the size of the stimulus applied, the action potential peak remains the same. What this shows is that even an appliance, device or artificial neural network (to "train the brain's receptors") placed in the immediate pathway will not stop the signal propagation. Like solar x-rays that can incept total communication blackouts, a way or mode must be found to short circuit the whole transfer process.


Note further that each pulse peak for the action potential coincides with a polarization change in the axon. Thus, as the pulse moves to a given site on the axon, Na+ ions move into the axon. Though technically both potassium and sodium ions are involved, there is actually a preferential bias. This bias is what we'll need to exploit in creating an adequate neural network to regulate the reception of impulses. This particular bias inheres in a preferential transferrence of Na+ ions through the axon membrane by a ratio that varies from 3:1 to 3:2 relative to K+ ions.

Thus, one way to engender a short circuit would be to alter the bias by altering the ion concentration at the axon membrane, say to 1:1. The synapses also have a role, of course, specifically the synaptic cleft. As I noted above, action potentials are constantly generated in an ‘all or nothing’ kind of way, and their endpoint is the synaptic cleft of the neuron. But here is where the ‘buck’ or rather the pulse, stops. Because as the axon has no choice in propagating the action potential, the neuron on the opposite side of the synapse (the post-synaptic cell) does have a choice of whether to fire or not fire when the potential arrives. If post synaptic neurons fired predictably with arrival of each and every action potential they’d be totally deterministic.


And boring. The fact that they need not fire, indicates a high degree of probability factored into the process. This process is depicted in Fig. 2 in simplified view, based on treating the axons as simple electrical ‘cables’ and the ends as ‘terminals’. This is perhaps the essential modus operandi for the brain acting as self-programmable von Neumann machine, particularly since quantum mechanics can easily be factored in.


In the diagram, we focus on Axon 1 and note that when the action potential arrives at the terminal it’s depolarized. This depolarization enables Calcium ions (Ca+2) already within the terminal to diffuse out into the mediating space. These ions follow a concentration gradient, unlike the case of the Na+ ions in the sodium pump. As the ions migrate, then diffuse to the post-synaptic cell (at Axon 2), they leave a channel in their wake that allows quantal releases of neurotransmitter (shown as a solid dot). These, like the Ca+2 ions diffuse across to the post-synaptic cell(s).


One neurotransmitter is acetylcholine. If the transmission of this or any similar chemical is rapid firing will occur, if not it won’t. Note also that Axon 2 must have a way of eliminating neurotransmitters almost as soon as they arrive. For acetylcholine, the enzyme cholinesterase acts to break it down into choline and acetate. In these inactive forms the neuron is spared being in a state of maximal and continuous excitation that would otherwise destroy it.


Generalizing the electrical cable analogy, the synapses act as switches in the system, the ‘on’ or ‘off’ positions denoted by information, in the form of chemical messages, to cross the synaptic cleft and trigger firing of the post-synaptic neuron(s) or not. Most probably there are bundles of similar neurons linked together by their respective connections, to perform critical functions. One might refer to the neuronal super-assembly or 'super-circuit’ within which considerations such as networks, and optimization of paths as well as 'adjacency and order' take precedence. Again, this is almost absurdly oversimplified since there really are no neurons that have only one connection to another. Indeed, we expect the typical neuron to have something like 10,000 connections to others.


But a start to how we might proceed is depicted  in the Kohonen SOM (Self-Organizing Map) in Fig. 3. Again, I reiterate, I'm keeping this at the most basic level. To reinforce this, trials performed quickly disclose Kohonen SOM  is too oversimplified. For example, it's applicable only to a single layer but the brain region under scrutiny is multi-layered. In addition, each "grid" neuron is an output neuron only. In real life, one must have both input and output neurons.Technically, we would need to examine and use the Multi-Layer Perceptron Network.

Anyway, as the Kohonen (SOM) is implemented, each input pattern gives rise to a localized region of activity in the feature map against a background of lower activity.For example, the activity may be registered as relative voltages, and these in turn may signify the ratio of Na+ ions to K+ ions. Once the Kohonen SOM is entrained, the aggregation of the input pattern should cause a localized group of neurons to be active.

However, the activity will almost surely not be what is desirable, because the simplicity of the map doesn't allow us to make drastic changes to the configuration of action potential thresholds.  In this case, using quantum dot implants - say for a fundie's brain - might well send him into convulsions, or worse. We certainly don't wish to have happen to the fundie what transpired with the main character in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' (i.e. after he was lobotomized at the end) we merely want to see his most reactive behavior tempered, so that he's tolerable, and more tolerant to others!

We ought to note here that already amazing steps have been made in terms of electronic implants, to control everything from over -eating to alcoholism. If these aberrant behaviors are within our purview, it is only a matter of time before excessive, meme (mind-virus) -driven zealous religiosity and its hate-driven actions derived from it are controlled.

See the following for information on the progress in electronic brain implants thus far:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-brain-implant.htm#


http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-semiconductor-blog/2010/11/brain-implants-in-10-20-years.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2087843/Living-cyborg-brains-created-laboratory--electrical-chips-replacing-missing-parts.html

Can One Molecule Bring Virtuous Morality?

Paul J. Zak, author of "The Moral Molecule" would have us believe that just one little molecule: oxytocin, can bring humanity much greater morality (WSJ Review, today, 'The Trust Molecule' p. C1). In this short WSJ piece, basically a distillation of his book, he attempts to show the degree to which just a little bit more oxytocin in our lives could make some of us  (who'd otherwise remain churlish rogues and curmudgeons) more trusting, optimistic and generous.  As he puts it:

"In our blood and brains, oxytocin appears to be the chemical elixir that creates bonds of trust not just in our intimate relationships but also in our business dealings, in politics and in society at large."

Ahhh, just imagine then a congress in DC that actually works together harmoniously most of the time as opposed to incessantly jabbing for political one-upmanship. And a government that actually works for the people, as opposed to subjugating their interests too often to corporations.  Imagine also, Wall Street traders that worked for their clients' benefit for once, as opposed to exploiting them while calling them "dumb order flow" or "chickens to be plucked". Imagine - be still my heart- doctors who actually worked to first and foremost enhance their patients' best health outcomes as opposed to making extra bucks by finding problems that aren't there.

It's almost a dream come true! Hell, a Repub congress under the influence of an oxytocin nasal hit (for each one) might then yesterday have voted outright to approve letting the interest on the student Stafford loans remain at 3.8% with no strings, as opposed to gouging women's Wellness programs to get the $5.8 b to pay for the loans interest status quo for a year. Instead, the House bill demands all women's screening, including for mammograms and pap smears be cut!  Help the students, screw the women! (And if this doesn't reinforce the point that the GOP is waging a war on women, I don't know what will! I mean, the first thing they think of to defray the cost of keeping the interest the same on student loans is cutting women's health screenings? How 'bout closing corporate tax loopholes?)

Such a moral cure for Repuke hijinks would also be kind of ironic in this case given,  as Zak writes, that oxytocin is "known primarily as a female reproductive hormone".  For example, it's the hormone that secretes in lactation, which spurs on the continued inclination to lactation and also "is responsible for the calm, focused attention that mothers lavish on their babies while breat feeding". Those breast fed babies in turn, tend to grow up to be more likely to trust others, and access higher oxytocin levels. (Which leaves those of us who were bottle-fed for whatever reason, out in the cold! (:

In the article, Zak then goes on to briefly describe a set of experiments he and colleagues performed in 2001, wherein a synthetic oxytocin was "sprayed in subjects' nasal passages- a way to get it directly into their brains". The responses in terms of generosity (by money- giving) were then noted, measured and in every case in which there weren't unseen impediments (i.e. oxytocin receptors malfunctioning) the subjects responded in the positive.

Zak later elaborates by noting that increased oxytocin doesn't render one a continuous, total sheep (which would be very bad in a world replete with wolves) but rather "helps us to maintain our balance between behavior based on trust and behavior based on wariness and distrust."

Unfortunately, Zak doesn't go much into the latter behavior or why it emerges, especially in those suffering PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome) especially developed in childhood trauma or war. He doesn't explain that in such people, it is the brain's amygdala which is sensitized, leading one to be wary and hyper-alert almost 100% of the time. Nor does he relate whether (in such further tests-experiments) any synthetic oxytocin ever caused the amygdala's relentless warning radars to abate (say using PET, or SPECT-scans) in affected subjects.

The conclusion one must take away, in the absence of such further experiments, is that the addition of one chemical  - even an alleged "trust" chemical- is unlikely to make much of a difference.  The main reason? Human morality plausibly evolved over millions of years, and putatively commenced when there was little or no trust hormone in the primitive brain.

For example, in the era of 1.1 to 1.2 million years ago it was common practice for our primitive human ancestors to leave the weak, frail and elderly for the saber tooth tigers. They otherwise would have slowed up the nomadic hunting tribe(s) and made them more susceptible to extinction en masse. Thus it served group survival value. But by the time of widespread agriculture, perhaps 10,000 years ago, group survival value was enhanced by cooperation. In the agri-setting, then, there was much more in the way of contribution each member could make - not just the very strong. There was more reason to keep all alive. The earliest morality then was based on the preservation of the tribe or community, and it largely remains so. A single molecule isn't likely to overturn 1-plus million years of such evolution.

Add to this the other fact that in the course of brain evolution many atavistic structures remain from our primitive past and still militate against moral advancement.  Thus, the reticular formation retains its hold over much human behavior via territoriality, lust and outright aggression. In effect, it's unlikely that merely spraying humans with a synthetic oxytocin will make them less likely to wage war, invade other nations, or enslave the vulnerable.

What we really need then, is another quantum jump in brain evolution, but as Sagan has noted (see: 'The Dragons of Eden'), this will likely have to wait another million years- if we last that long!

Who the HELL cares? NO sane person!

One of the readers on this site just sent me a link for a new Pastor Mike screed about "Hell". Seems the goodly pastor is fully exercised (exorcised?) that not enough people are taking that infernal abode seriously. Those who can stomach it, can read more here:

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_82_WHO-THE-HELL-CARES-

One thing that comes across from this dreck, as my notifier observed, is that (according to the Pastor) MOST humans are DAMNED! Evidently only about a handful of our species will walk through those pearly gates, and enjoy ....what? I guess sitting on a cloud, playing a harp whilst occasionally glancing over to see 100 billion fellow beings burning - while basking in an unseemly air of self-righteousness. (No wonder when faced with this option, people prefer Hell by 5 to 1)

Again, this is absolute nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church wisely moved away from Hell-bending and obsession with good reason. It was undermining their rational stance, and making them appear like the medieval demagogoues so many critics claimed. It didn't help that creepy exorcisms were also sometimes televised, such as a memorable one about fifteen years ago on a Larry King show about the Devil and Hell.

On that show, skeptic author Paul Kurtz totally pulverized his RC padre opponent and made him look like someone who just came through a time machine from the middle ages.

Here is what we do know: Hell isn't even an original concept. Christians hijacked it from early pagan mystery cults-religions sometime around the Second Council of Constantinople. Up until then, the early Christian Fathers (e.g. Origin of Adamantius, Clement of Alexandria) had taught the more subtle and sane doctrine of metempsychosis. Which when you delve into it, makes vastly more sense than the juvenile "heaven and hell".

In metempsychosis, the soul is held in abeyance for some interval - which could be from 1 day to 100,000 years - before being allowed to "emigrate" into a new body via conception. As we see from this, the soul does not originate at conception, but rather is pre-existing and externally transferred to the new zygote. Is it possible to have a soulless human? Yes, according to metempsychosis it is! There may in fact be humans who have not been subsequently habitated by a soul, for whatever reason.

One can think here of total monsters like Adolf Hitler, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer. In each of these cases, the degree of monstrosity in their assorted acts is concomitant with nary an ounce of regret, and discloses the existence of a soulless monster. Or does it?

To the atheist-Materialist such as I am, this is all specious nonsense, since we don't accept "souls" or afterlives or transferral of the intangible energies of souls via metempsychosis or reincarnation for that matter (which differs from metempsychosis in that the SAME soul is given to return time and again to different bodies.). However, we do recognize the relativity of nonsense. Not all nonsense is create equally, in other words.

For example, metempsychosis may be nonsense, but on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most egregious nonsense) it is maybe a '2' while "Heaven-Hell" occupy a 10.

Similarly, Bigfoot may be nonsense, but it is at maybe a '4' or '5' while fairies are a '10'. Alien abductions of suburban white matrons to harvest their eggs may be nonsense, but it is at a 1 or 2, compared with werewolves wreaking havoc.

It's all relative.

Unfortunately, the other main problem with Hell belief as espoused and laid out by the goodly Pastor, is that it is a sure symptom of psychosis. I went into this briefly in an early blog spot concerning a teen girl in Barbados who "lost it" because she believed demons were pursuing her.

I later had occasion to speak with her then pscyhiatrist - not about the girl personally- but rather the whole meme of Hell belief and promotion.

The psychiatrist, a Dr. Pat Bannister, informed me that while not all Hell believers she had met were psychotics, nearly all psychotics were strong Hell believers. And not just any old "hell" but the old fire and brimstone variety.

In fact, John Wayne Gacy - when he confessed to the 29 or so murders he committed, was heard to say: "Now, I am gonna burn forever in Hell!"

A key component of a Hell-psychotic, as Dr. Bannister put it to me in 1972, was that they not only believed in this abode themselves, but believed it applied to all who didn't fit into their behavioral mode. That usually meant, in the case of hyper-religious folk (who could also be classified as partial psychotics): Unbelievers, or....good faithful Christians who merely believed Jesus was a great man and not a God.

The other key attibute of the Hell psychotic is manifested when they are hypnotized, and convinced during the hypnosis that there is NO Hell.

On coming out of the trance, they typically go bonkers - shouting, pulling their hair out, cutting themselves with razors. According to one therp - one such person even tried to jump through a window. The only solution was to put them back into the trance and re-introduce the Hell belief for their survival.

Why? Why did the presence of the Hell belief matter to their sanity? One would have thought the opposite.

As Dr. Bannister put it, the reason is that Hell is the ultimate sanction and backstop for their morality. If there is no ultimate sanction, their morality is meaningless. In other words, screwy as it sounds to a rational mind, the morality these pathetic dregs follow is contingent on an ultimate place of punishment for all those who DON'T follow it! Their mental peace resides on knowing that all others face eternal destruction if they don't follow the same rules.

In addition, no rational appeals based on a loving God are any use. The crazed, psychotic Hell believer will simply rationalize away all challenges and find a reason that even a loving God HAD to invent Hell.

Is it possible to rescue these pathological people from themselves? In an unpublished manuscript entitled The Hell Delusion, written ca. 1979, I actually included a chapter wherein I dealt with this issue. I suggested that all of these extreme Hellists be rounded up and implanted with electrodes in their limbic systems.

While in 1979 this perhaps sounded preposterous, it no longer is with the advent of quantum dot electrodes - which can easily be inserted into a brain synapse or neural junction. Although you don't hear very much about it (we can understand why!) it is now possible that negative emotions emanating from the brain's amygdala or hippocampus can be suitably regulated or modulated by properly installed quantum electrodes or even micro-chips.

Within such devices also resides the possible end to all prisons. Instead of squandering so much in the way of money and resources to keep the anti-social locked up, electrodes-chips are simply implanted in their brains to regulate behavior. Ordinary people may also wish to seek the benefit of these devices, which once wedded to the neural chassis, are bound to make for a more productive and efficient being.

In the meantime, the most important use for these chips, electrodes and quantum dots is surely to control and manage the Hellish ideations of those like Pastor Mike. At the very least, so they don't spread their mental contamination and craziness to more vulnerable and impressionable minds. We don't need any more psychos in this country!

"Evil, Sin and the Devil" - Getting a grip (Part I)

Having seen my brother (Pastor Mike) become ever more unhinged, and his use of "evil", "sin" and "Devil" multiply with his delusions, it is time to get a grip. Is he talking-writing of actual, objective realities, or blowing gaseous emissions out of his mouth (and mind) that bear no semblance to the real world?

In truth, the use of the word “evil” is freighted with superstitious baggage, of little use in a rational –technological age. It presumes origination from “a negative supernatural force” or “Satan”. It overly complicates the issue while unnecessarily adding theoretical existences. We already know in this case that brain structures (e.g. amygdala, reticular formation etc.) can account for all atavistic behaviors from misdirected lust, to baby killing to mass murder or genocide. One need not invent a supernatural special being or super Devil to account for them!

About a year ago, I also took Wendy Kaminer to task in an issue of Free Inquiry (‘Religious vs. Secular Concepts; April/May 2007, p. 65), for an earlier piece in which she (a claimed secularist) used the loaded terms “sin” and “evil”. Kaminer replied in a short note to my letter , basically averring she had no intention of altering her “attachment to moral categories of good and evil.” This is her prerogative and right, of course, but doesn’t alter my own point one iota. That if Kaminer (or anyone else) embraces such attachment then she is more rightly a religionist and not a secularist. Secular people refrain from using religious words, labels, concepts or language in the sense of positively incorporating them into a secular Zeitgeist..


But let us return to my pastor brother's contentions, and in particular his question: ‘Can an atheist deny the existence of evil?’

I maintain that denial of “evil” is not the issue, but primitive language use is. Thus, “evil” is an antiquated and redundant term since what people refer to as “evil” is easily explainable in terms of brain evolution. Thus, Homo Sapiens is fundamentally an animal species with a host of animal/primitive instincts residing in its ancient brain or paleocortex.

Meanwhile, the paleocortex sits evolutionarily beneath the more evolved mesocortex and neocortex, the latter of which crafts concepts and language. One clever person has compared this tri-partite structure to a car design welding a Lamborghini to a Model T Ford chassis, with a 1957 Chevy engine to power the Lamborghini.

There is much evidence that the aggregate of human behavior will get progressively worse as the complexity inherent in technological and globalized societies increases, but brain evolution is unable to keep pace with it. Basically, we are a species with the capability of making nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles – but with Cro-Magnon brains – and a swatch of reptilian tendencies.

Indeed, the mixed brain design, in terms of adaptability to modern society, is already theorized as one major cause of depression and mental illness in modern society (e.g. The Noonday Demon, Chapter 11, ‘Evolution’, p 401)

The behavior resulting from this hybrid brain is bound to be mixed, reflecting the fact that we literally have three “brains” contending for emergence in one cranium. Behavior will therefore range from the most selfless acts (not to mention creative masterpieces) to savagery, carnal lust run amuck and addictions that paralyze purpose.

The mistake of the religionist is to associate the first mode of behavior with being “human” and not the latter. In effect, disowning most of the possible behaviors of which humans are capable.- and hence nine-tenths of what makes us what we are. Worse, not only disowning these behaviors but ascribing them to some antagonistic dark or negative supernatural force (“Satan”) thereby making them into a religious abstraction.

The neocortex then goes into over-drive, propelled by its ability to craft words for which no correspondents may exist in reality. Suddenly, our “souls” are at risk of being “lost to Satan” who will then fry us in “Hell”. In effect, the religionist’s higher brain centers divide reality into forces of darkness and light, just like the ancient Manicheans.

As the divide grows and persists, certain behaviorally idealistic expectations come to the fore, and a mass of negative or primitive actions is relegated to “evil”. Humans tuned in to this Zeitgeist, which is soon circulated everywhere, being to suppress all behaviors that they regard as defective or “sinful”. They don’t realize or appreciate that humans are risen apes, and not “fallen angels”.

Are we all “sinners” as Pastor Mike claims? No, we’re an animal species saddled with a tri-partite brain whose higher centers often become self aware of the gulf between the base, atavistic and primitive behaviors (emanating from the reptilian brain) and the ideal, non-atavistic behavior conceived by the neocortex. The neocortical language centers then craft the term “sin” to depict the gulf between one and the other.

In this context, the concept of “sin” makes eminent sense. Sin emerges as the label placed on specific brands and forms of “evil”. In reality, “Sin” itself is predicated on an exaggerated importance of humans in the universe. Thus, it elevates (albeit in a perverse way) the importance of humans in an otherwise meaningless cosmos. With “sin” the human has at least the potential of offending his deity – thereby getting its attention – as opposed to being relegated to the status of a cosmic “roach” (which any advanced alien sentience would regard us).

“Sin” then is localized and reactive behavior at the personal, individual level. “Sin” impinges on and affects the deity that so many believe in. Take away the deity, and sin loses its allure and quickly becomes redundant. How can there be “sin” if there is no deity to offend or to notice “sin”? To tote up all the little “black marks” in its “book of future judgment”.

“The Devil” or “Shaitan” is simply the projection of the most primitive brain imperatives onto the external world. And yes, this imperative (which I will soon get to in more detail in Part II) is capable of mass murder as well as genocides. A supernatural Satan need not be invoked here, only the ancient brain of reptiles – acting collectively – aided and abetted by a newly perverted neocortex, which now does the reptile brain’s bidding, as opposed to attempting to halt it.

The more real and present danger inheres in zealots and extremist religionists projecting their Satanic delusions on fellow humans, and thereby demonizing them to convert them into the most debased and vile outcasts. Thus does Pastor Mike refer to atheists as "agents of Satan" and "Satan's disciples" - as if the ability to merely question rigid or uncritical adherence to a faith qualifes as a demonic attribute.