Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

…

• You wrote “Yes, in this case the man is irrational. To me, irrational is not “knowingly” and certainly not “willingly”. You disagree, and I accept your position.”
  A. It is the teaching in the Catechism the mortal sin (irrational) is committed with full knowledge and consent, not a personal opinion.
• You wrote: “Since you are treating these examples as real individuals, and some indeed are, and we do not know what they knew or what they willed, we cannot apply these examples.”
  A. I don’t want to apply them, but wanted to respond to your question. It is enough that Pope John Paul II wrote in
• You wrote: “Again, the topic of this thread is, “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?””
  A. No it is not. It is Why. It is given that it occurs by the formation of the question.
• You wrote “There is nothing in what you quoted that says that an irrational person is of “full knowledge”.”
  A. Of course there is! because “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857) and simultaneously “Sin is an act contrary to reason”. (CCC 1872)
• You wrote: “A man behaving against his own will is not “willingly” doing so. The man’s intent changed, if he had ever intended to reject his own rather insignificant image of God.”
  A. He is not acting against his own will in my scenario.

John Paul II wrote in Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation and Penance:
Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of “fundamental option” - as is commonly said today - against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

You wrote: "Can we agree to disagree and be done with it? "
A. It’ not my opinion that is presented here so you are not disagreeing with me. If you want to quit commenting on the scenario, do so.

 

[OneSheep]

Good evening, Vico!!

• You wrote “Yes, in this case the man is irrational. To me, irrational is not “knowingly” and certainly not “willingly”. You disagree, and I accept your position.”
  A. It is the teaching in the Catechism the mortal sin (irrational) is committed with full knowledge and consent, not a personal opinion.

It is a personal opinion, in that you agree with what you were taught, and it makes sense to you. To me, a person who is irrational is not knowingly or willingly doing anything in that condition. You obviously think that you are right, and that there is no room for difference of opinion in the question. I get it.

Yes, sin is irrational. The difference here is that the person himself is irrational, he does not know the truth, and he behaves in ways that are both in line with what he thinks and not in line. He thinks that he is bound and not bound. When we say that sin is irrational, we mean that it goes against a certain set of reasons that we see as true. When we are talking about a man who is irrational, a person who does not know the truth but thinks he does and behaves according to an untruth that he thinks is true, he himself is irrational, we are talking about the person not the sin. The irrationality of sin is not in reference to the person, it is in reference to the act itself characterized as against reason as we know it.

You wrote “There is nothing in what you quoted that says that an irrational person is of “full knowledge”.”
A. Of course there is! because “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857) and simultaneously “Sin is an act contrary to reason”. (CCC 1872)

Yes, sin is an act contrary to reason. “Reason” is in the eye of the beholder, you and I, the community, the Church. If the sinner does not share in the “reason”, that is, he personally is irrational, then he is far from anything I can call “full knowledge”. We get back to the question Vico, did the crowd who hung Jesus commit a mortal sin? You would probably say yes. Yet, they did not know what they were doing. They believed an untruth, that Jesus was not God, not a person of value, expendable. Their behavior was irrational, in our eyes, but rational in their own. And Jesus forgave them. I put a lot of weight on what happened at the crucifixion.

• You wrote: “A man behaving against his own will is not “willingly” doing so. The man’s intent changed, if he had ever intended to reject his own rather insignificant image of God.”
  A. He is not acting against his own will in my scenario.

You stated that the man tried to avoid sin and failed. This is an act against his own will. He did not want to fail.

John Paul II wrote in Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation and Penance:
Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of “fundamental option” - as is commonly said today - against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Yes, the question is, does anyone ever knowingly and willingly choose something gravely disordered? I use the word “knowingly” in an all-inclusive sense, and you do not. Was he saying that an irrational person, believing untruths and not knowing God in a real way has “full knowledge”? All of this begs an example from JPII himself. What examples did he have in mind? How does this apply to those who hung Jesus on the cross? Did they not do something gravely disordered? Yet, they did not know what they were doing, and Jesus forgave them, unrepentant. Do you know how JPII would have applied what he said to the crucifixion and what Jesus said from the cross? Are people who “do not know what they are doing” knowingly rejecting God?

Premise A: Man knows what he is doing, and knows God and divine law.
Premise B. Man commits sin, which is a rejection of God and divine law.
Conclusion C. Man knowingly rejects God and divine law.

If we were to agree on “If A and B, then C”, then I am saying that I do not observe Man meets premise A, and neither did the crowd that hung Jesus or anyone else who sins. To me, you have not proven that the man knows God in a real way. He believe that he is " not bound to the precepts of the Church", so he does not know divine law with any surety either as he also says, “I have my own ideas about marriage.” In my opinion you are saying “If not A, but B, then C”. Or rather, “If B only, then C”.

You are saying, I think, that the man meets premise A. I disagree. Can we leave it at that? Shake on it?

Good night Vico, I am tired…

Perhaps irrational too…

 

[Vico]

…

I don’t have time right now to respond to all items.

• You wrote: “You are saying, I think, that the man meets premise A. I disagree. Can we leave it at that? Shake on it?”
  A. Premise A is in not in acreement with the teaching of the Church. It is not necessary for mortal sin to knows God and divine law. What needs to exist is “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859) And this knowledge may be through conscience (CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…"). Even atheists may sin this way. There are many posts on this with the statements from the Catechism. We must avoid the Jansensist errors!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

They do not know God. All they know is what others have said or written and they reject that because they do not believe it.

Pray for them.

 

[OneSheep]

They do not know God. All they know is what others have said or written and they reject that because they do not believe it.

Pray for them.

I agree. There is God within, with which they have not connected. They do not know God, which brings us back to the use of the word “knowingly”. Does a person “knowingly” reject what they do not know? If so, then we must either modify the definition of the word “knowingly” to suit the circumstance, or say that people do not knowingly reject God.

Those that crucified Christ did not know God hanging before them.

There is much that people have “said and written” about God which does not reflect God’s beneficence and unconditional love. A person of good conscience can rationally reject such an image of God. On the other hand, there are persons attracted to the image of a vengeful god because they find vengeance (under the carefully explained veil of “justice”) of utmost importance, and they heartily believe in such a god. These profess faith, and may not sin, but they do not know God in a real way. We can pray for them also. Well, we can pray for everyone, that all of us may come to know the real Abba, as none of us has the perfect image in mind.

Do you see what I’m saying, Michael?

Have a great day, and thanks for adding to this thread!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I agree. There is God within, with which they have not connected. They do not know God, which brings us back to the use of the word “knowingly”. Does a person “knowingly” reject what they do not know? If so, then we must either modify the definition of the word “knowingly” to suit the circumstance, or say that people do not knowingly reject God.

Those that crucified Christ did not know God hanging before them.

There is much that people have “said and written” about God which does not reflect God’s beneficence and unconditional love. A person of good conscience can rationally reject such an image of God. On the other hand, there are persons attracted to the image of a vengeful god because they find vengeance (under the carefully explained veil of “justice”) of utmost importance, and they heartily believe in such a god. These profess faith, and may not sin, but they do not know God in a real way. We can pray for them also. Well, we can pray for everyone, that all of us may come to know the real Abba, as none of us has the perfect image in mind.

Do you see what I’m saying, Michael?

Have a great day, and thanks for adding to this thread!

Yes, I wonder though about Lucifer, supposedly in God’s presence (knowing God) and yet pride turned him away. Pride and ignorance, two very powerful impediments.

 

[Aloysium]

Everyone knows love in one way or another.
God is love.
The world is the way it is because people turn from love and are selfish, plain and simple.
It is only through God’s mercy and the sacrifice of the Son, that we are able to get to heaven.
Gimme a break.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Everyone knows love in one way or another.
God is love.
The world is the way it is because people turn from love and are selfish, plain and simple.
It is only through God’s mercy and the sacrifice of the Son, that we are able to get to heaven.
Gimme a break.

People may know love but they do not recognize it as God, a living personal creator.

 

[Aloysium]

People may know love but they do not recognize it as God, a living personal creator.

They do recognize the reality of God.
A sort of “anti-pharisee”, I suppose.

 

[Vico]

…

There I wrote* Jansensist errors by mistake,* I should have been avoid the Jesuit errors (of philosophic sin, which was condemned Aug. 24, 1690), although we should also avoid Jansenist errors. I had posted condemnations for them together earlier, both from Pope Alexander VIII, 1690.

It was condemned that in a man who either is 1) ignorant of God or 2) does not think about God during the sinful act, that the act is not a culpable offense against God.

 

[simpleas]

There I wrote* Jansensist errors by mistake,* I should have been avoid the Jesuit errors (of philosophic sin, which was condemned Aug. 24, 1690), although we should also avoid Jansenist errors. I had posted condemnations for them together earlier, both from Pope Alexander VIII, 1690.

It was condemned that in a man who either is 1) ignorant of God or 2) does not think about God during the sinful act, that the act is not a culpable offense against God.

No 2 confuses me. Noone actually thinks about God or the person they may harm through words or faults, it’s only after on reflection that we think of God. If we were to think about God in that moment would we take a step back? I think sometimes we would, and sometimes we wouldn’t.
I think the man you and and onesheep are discussing is neither accepting or rejecting God, he is in the middle. Maybe God demands we pick him or not. But nothing is ever that easy. Ok for some people it is a black and white situation, for others many gray area’s appear.

Just my thoughts.

PS, why do documents dating back to 1600’s still have authority in the 21st century?

 

[OneSheep]

As far as I’m aware they are not married. Yes you are right there would be many questions, with far to many asumptions.
I was just thinking on the whole marriage thing as being so important, and if you live with someone and do not commit and marry in the eyes of God, this could be seen as K&WR.

Thanks for the reply

Yes, Simpleas, it could be seen that way, and I respect such a view, even though I do not share it, and I try to enlighten people to a more positive view of humanity.

It is interesting, some of the “rumblings” coming from the gatherings of the hierarchy, in response to the poll of Christian families. We are not “softening” our approaches toward murder, rape, theft, or a multitude of other sins. We can take a non-condemning approach toward unmarried couples, we can invite them to a deeper commitment without condemning their choices, which they (the couples) see as doing harm to no one.

Love, peace, and the blessings of God to you…

People may know love but they do not recognize it as God, a living personal creator.

I agree.

1 John 4:7-8New International Version (NIV)
God’s Love and Ours

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

And some people’s love is very minimal, like those who have an inability to empathize or have developed a pathology.

So, does a person who has such a pathology knowingly and willingly reject God? A couple of years ago, I watched a stomach-turning court testimony video of a man who regularly attended church and was active in his parish, but was secretly a serial killer. It was obvious in his testimony that he had not the slightest clue of the value of a human life. All of his “faith” was centered on self-preservation and looking good in the eyes of others. People who knew him found him calm and gentle, but these were people who he did not prey upon. He did not know God in other people, he did not know God at all, even though he probably thought he did. Of course, his behaviors rejected God, but he did not have a clue what he was doing, in the sense of love, in the sense of destroying something of infinite value: human life. In fact, he did not communicate value of anything. His own desire for self-preservation and status was instinctual, not a matter of value.

Thanks again, Michael, for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I invite anyone to provide an example or scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. I do not observe such as occurring.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, Simpleas, it could be seen that way, and I respect such a view, even though I do not share it, and I try to enlighten people to a more positive view of humanity.

It is interesting, some of the “rumblings” coming from the gatherings of the hierarchy, in response to the poll of Christian families. We are not “softening” our approaches toward murder, rape, theft, or a multitude of other sins. We can take a non-condemning approach toward unmarried couples, we can invite them to a deeper commitment without condemning their choices, which they (the couples) see as doing harm to no one.

Love, peace, and the blessings of God to you…

I agree.

1 John 4:7-8New International Version (NIV)
God’s Love and Ours

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

And some people’s love is very minimal, like those who have an inability to empathize or have developed a pathology.

So, does a person who has such a pathology knowingly and willingly reject God? A couple of years ago, I watched a stomach-turning court testimony video of a man who regularly attended church and was active in his parish, but was secretly a serial killer. It was obvious in his testimony that he had not the slightest clue of the value of a human life. All of his “faith” was centered on self-preservation and looking good in the eyes of others. People who knew him found him calm and gentle, but these were people who he did not prey upon. He did not know God in other people, he did not know God at all, even though he probably thought he did. Of course, his behaviors rejected God, but he did not have a clue what he was doing, in the sense of love, in the sense of destroying something of infinite value: human life. In fact, he did not communicate value of anything. His own desire for self-preservation and status was instinctual, not a matter of value.

Thanks again, Michael, for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I invite anyone to provide an example or scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. I do not observe such as occurring.

Yes I agree with the non condemning approach to all people regardless of the way they choose to live their life.
If we pick out certain lifestyles and condemn them, people aren’t exactly going to be knocking the doors down to get into churches, because they already believe they are unworthy, bad sinners. Some may not care at certain times in their life, but when they do they may never have felt any welcome from church goers and so never bother to try. Then again, I’m the sort of person who believes God takes extra care of these people.

 

[Vico]

No 2 confuses me. Noone actually thinks about God or the person they may harm through words or faults, it’s only after on reflection that we think of God. If we were to think about God in that moment would we take a step back? I think sometimes we would, and sometimes we wouldn’t.
I think the man you and and onesheep are discussing is neither accepting or rejecting God, he is in the middle. Maybe God demands we pick him or not. But nothing is ever that easy. Ok for some people it is a black and white situation, for others many gray area’s appear.

Just my thoughts.

PS, why do documents dating back to 1600’s still have authority in the 21st century?

Dogmatic decisions of the Church on faith and morals persist. Some were teaching that culpability was impossible for moral sin (also called philosophical sin). We still use documents from Nicea (325 A.D.)

In order to answer the question of "Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?" there must be conditions given. To meet this criteria it is given that it is mortal sin since we cannot judge that ourselves. Mortal sin is a rejection of God. Secondly, it is only the informed category of mortal sin considered for simplicity. The other two categories are of voluntary sin and sin of vincible ignorance, but for vincible ignorance one can say there could be an informed conscience.

In earlier posts was that the sources of sin, per the Catholic Church are ignorance, passion, and malice, and that in this case it was malice of pride that was the point of downfall, a First Commandment sin.

 

[ready]

“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

Pride and sickness of soul is the cause of this rejection. God bless you.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

If we pick out certain lifestyles and condemn them, people aren’t exactly going to be knocking the doors down to get into churches, because they already believe they are unworthy, bad sinners. Some may not care at certain times in their life, but when they do they may never have felt any welcome from church goers and so never bother to try. Then again, I’m the sort of person who believes God takes extra care of these people.

There is a place, however, for communication of sin, “this behavior is harmful, and this is why it is so”, and I am sure you agree. Some people will disagree with the assessment, and are turned off by the Church. Rather than chase after these with pointed fingers, we can patiently wait as they suffer the natural consequences for sin. If they knew open arms when they turned from the Church, then they will remember the open arms when they consider return.

Yes I agree with the non condemning approach to all people regardless of the way they choose to live their life.

It is unfortunate that so much of Church doctrine concerning sin (i.e. mortal, venial, invincible, vincible, voluntary, involuntary, etc. etc.) is centered, basically, on whether or not a person is somehow condemned by God. This works fine for a person who believes that God condemns people, but the language of human choice in salvation is a contradiction to the depiction that God condemns, and our God who loves unconditionally, for many of us, does not condemn people. It is not a matter of God deciding that man deserves hell, it is a matter of man choosing hell, and I am using that in the sense of “hell during life” as well “hell after death”. People will differ on whether God would allow a person to unwittingly choose hell. It makes some sense that God would allow people to ignorantly choose hell in the afterlife, because He appears to allow it to happen here on Earth. For me, it is a matter of faith that when we die we come face to face with Jesus. In doing so, would not Jesus do everything in His power to make a person aware of what they are doing? That is a lot of power, an infinite amount of power. I don’t see how any amount of human ignorance can stand up to it.

Indeed, humans do not want to be ignorant, humans want to love, and humans obey when it makes sense to do so. It is a more pessimistic view of humanity to deny these attributes of man, and I am saying that the pessimistic view is unfounded. People do not knowingly and willingly reject God, in my observation, and there has not been an example put forth in this nearly 1000 posts that holds up to scrutiny.

It is human to condemn, to think negatively, of other people when they hurt others or appear disobedient. Capacity to condemn is an important aspect of our conscience, and condemnation helps guide our own behavior. The capacity to condemn is part of our God-given nature. The question is, do we center our theology, and our anthropology, on the misperception (based on condemnation) that man is “evil” or partly so, or do we use the gift of understanding and forgiveness to clear away the clouds of misperception, and see with eyes of love? Indeed, when Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold anything against, it is not only that in doing so that we reconcile with God-within-the-other, but we gain a new set of eyes. Do you see what I’m saying?

Thanks, Simpleas, for your response and contributions to this thread.

 

[simpleas]

Dogmatic decisions of the Church on faith and morals persist. Some were teaching that culpability was impossible for moral sin (also called philosophical sin). We still use documents from Nicea (325 A.D.)

In order to answer the question of "Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?" there must be conditions given. To meet this criteria it is given that it is mortal sin since we cannot judge that ourselves. Mortal sin is a rejection of God. Secondly, it is only the informed category of mortal sin considered for simplicity. The other two categories are of voluntary sin and sin of vincible ignorance, but for vincible ignorance one can say there could be an informed conscience.

In earlier posts was that the sources of sin, per the Catholic Church are ignorance, passion, and malice, and that in this case it was malice of pride that was the point of downfall, a First Commandment sin.

Thanks.

I’m just pondering on how we relate to age old documents from a very different time in our time. Not to say what they considered to be the correct way to inform us on how we should live for the glory of God was in correct, but how we understand it with the advances we have and learning about the human mind, conscience etc.

 

[davidv]

Thanks.

I’m just pondering on how we relate to age old documents from a very different time in our time.

By finding the truth in them.

Not to say what they considered to be the correct way to inform us on how we should live for the glory of God was in correct, but how we understand it with the advances we have and learning about the human mind, conscience etc.

Which of these advances have changed truth into untruth?

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

There is a place, however, for communication of sin, “this behavior is harmful, and this is why it is so”, and I am sure you agree. Some people will disagree with the assessment, and are turned off by the Church. Rather than chase after these with pointed fingers, we can patiently wait as they suffer the natural consequences for sin. If they knew open arms when they turned from the Church, then they will remember the open arms when they consider return.

It is unfortunate that so much of Church doctrine concerning sin (i.e. mortal, venial, invincible, vincible, voluntary, involuntary, etc. etc.) is centered, basically, on whether or not a person is somehow condemned by God. This works fine for a person who believes that God condemns people, but the language of human choice in salvation is a contradiction to the depiction that God condemns, and our God who loves unconditionally, for many of us, does not condemn people. It is not a matter of God deciding that man deserves hell, it is a matter of man choosing hell, and I am using that in the sense of “hell during life” as well “hell after death”. People will differ on whether God would allow a person to unwittingly choose hell. It makes some sense that God would allow people to ignorantly choose hell in the afterlife, because He appears to allow it to happen here on Earth. For me, it is a matter of faith that when we die we come face to face with Jesus. In doing so, would not Jesus do everything in His power to make a person aware of what they are doing? That is a lot of power, an infinite amount of power. I don’t see how any amount of human ignorance can stand up to it.

Indeed, humans do not want to be ignorant, humans want to love, and humans obey when it makes sense to do so. It is a more pessimistic view of humanity to deny these attributes of man, and I am saying that the pessimistic view is unfounded. People do not knowingly and willingly reject God, in my observation, and there has not been an example put forth in this nearly 1000 posts that holds up to scrutiny.

It is human to condemn, to think negatively, of other people when they hurt others or appear disobedient. Capacity to condemn is an important aspect of our conscience, and condemnation helps guide our own behavior. The capacity to condemn is part of our God-given nature. The question is, do we center our theology, and our anthropology, on the misperception (based on condemnation) that man is “evil” or partly so, or do we use the gift of understanding and forgiveness to clear away the clouds of misperception, and see with eyes of love? Indeed, when Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold anything against, it is not only that in doing so that we reconcile with God-within-the-other, but we gain a new set of eyes. Do you see what I’m saying?

Thanks, Simpleas, for your response and contributions to this thread.

I would say it depends on what behavior is deemed to be harmful. Many people do not live fully by Catholic teaching, yet consider themselves Catholic, maybe hoping one day they will be able to live fully by the teachings. And yes others just completely disregard any teachings and go live as they deem suitable.

Not all suffer consequences for not living a Catholic faith, many feel more free to believe in a God that doesn’t demand that they love him by giving up their human freedom to be as they wish.

I think it is difficult for some not all people to find it uncomfortable enough to think that they should not engage with certain “types” of people, because they are sinners worst than them through how they live and some do not reach out with kind words.

If we have the teaching of hell, then we still have a condemning God, after death.

We know that not sinning just because you are afraid of hell won’t “cut it” with God. A person must first understand themselves, find God within them, and then perhaps they can understand others and not be so quick to condemn them.

Yes I think we all could do with “new eyes” everyday.

 

[simpleas]

By finding the truth in them.

Which of these advances have changed truth into untruth?

What is the Truth?

I didn’t say that advances have changed truth into untruth. I was considering the medical side of advances. That we know alittle more now about why some, not all, actions humans can commit have reasons behind them, and not that people sin because they hate God, or their fellow man.

Take a person who does a very grave deed, there had been some who act out of charactor, and have been found to have brain tumors that affected their mind/conscience.
This would not have been known ages before now. So would have been seen as a grave sin, K&WRG.