What about when humans display courageous dignity in refusing to follow what the establishment dishes out from on high? Opposing the abolition of the idea of human dignity could be the last bastion of opposition to the pharmaceutical/industrial/military/consumerist hegemony which now has its grip on the world and threatens to reduce humans to pawns in a utilitarian game of "killing me softly".

Why do Pinker and others of his ilk have such an aversion to ideas simply because they may have some connection with religious belief? If they are good ideas, let them flourish. Does he want to impose anti-theism on everyone? How can he claim to defend the saving of lives while approving of abortion? Maybe an irrational aversion to religion blinds him to his inconsistencies. If "the mind is what the brain does" religion can look like a no-brainer and human dignity like nothing more than respect for molecules. But if the mind is what understands the brain (and a lot more), then many other things make sense, too, including human dignity, rational argument, respect for life, suffering, even God.

Dignity refers to individual worth and autonomy.

Sin refers to wrongdoing - not used that much because people feel uncomfortable about moral criticisms. It is sometimes replaced by euphemisms like "terrible thing".

We should try to understand both words rather than lable them "religious", as though that's a reason not to think about them.

Hey BR,

I would have thought to sin was to trangress against one's god.

Dignity however is less clear cut.

Is it how others view us or how we view ourselves that is of the greater import when we think about dignity?

There must inevitably exist tension between religion/sin vs dignity. Australia's recent amendments to give more equal legal treatment to homosexuals was a win for human dignity but was problematic for many of those who have adopted traditional thiestically inspired values.