The Conscience

Evolution has equipped the human animal with a set of instincts required to best ensure genetic perpetuation. These include the following:

Hunger
Lust and sex
Anger, hate & fear
Territoriality, possessiveness
Dominance/submissiveness
Irritability/serenity.
Sociality, parenting, family and tribal ties
Growth of emotions during ontogeny

This hard-wired programming is 100% selfish, even if some associated behavior may appear altruistic.

The brains of homo saps evolved to the point they could understand how the behavior of others could be an asset or liability to their existance. My old hound dog Jake also evolved to this point, which is why he licks my hand and growls at other, strange dogs.

Homo saps' conceptual ability developed beyond old Jake's. So did their ability to communicate beyond the growling stage. Thus, rules of conduct (laws) were established by the alphas, enforced with associated penalties, tweaked as necessary and passed on to succeeding generations. All this was still nothing more than a fancier, but still selfishly instinctive attempt to ensure self-perpetuation. Social behavior was controlled by cause and effect -- not conscience. At this stage, the concept of "sin" was as foreign to humans as it was to all other animals.

But then ...

At some point in their evolution, homo saps developed a behavior modifier unknown to all other animal species -- a conscience. (Picture the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden). From this point on, the alphas had another, even better tool to control behavior -- guilt -- which was found to be at least as effective as threats of punishment. Unacceptable behavior could then be given labels to elicit feelings of guilt -- "bad", "evil", "sinful".

It wasn't the selfish instincts that were "sinful" (even though many "religions" have ignorantly labeled them as such. It was the failure to keep those instincts under control as defined by the "laws".

However, in spite of control exercised by the neo-cortex in terms of morals, ethics, good intentions, etc., when sufficiently threatened we revert to type – and reverting to type means animal-instinctual.

Is there such a thing as real "love" -- an unselfish concern for the welfare of others? I think there is. Are we able to deny our own instincts to the point we can truly be altruistic? I think so. If these are possible (and I choose to think they are), I believe they would have to transcend the natural and require input from the supernatural. Zoologists do not see such unselfish and potentially self-harming behavior of value in perpetuating a species.