Lust, gluttony and greed - three of the seven deadly sins - are considered the gravest offenses of the human species. Although these vices were originally elements of religions such as Roman Catholicism and Christianity, they have since been ingrained in Western culture as immoral. These cardinal sins are not only sins in themselves, but are often thought to incite other “evil” behaviors. Are these sins really all so terrible? Can lust, gluttony and greed lead America to success and happiness? In his book, The Science of Sin, Simon M. Laham argues that these physiological characteristics characteristic of humanity are not mortal sins, and in fact not necessarily sins at all, but can instead lead to success and happiness. it is used correctly. In order to more deeply analyze the effect of these sins on our society today, we must first examine their history. So how did the Seven Deadly Sins earn their bad reputation? More than sixteen centuries ago, two monks, Evagrius Ponticus and John Cassian, compiled a list of sins that constituted an obstacle to ascetic communities. They organized this list in an effort to keep monks on the “right path” toward their spiritual calling and to help maintain social order in the monasteries. Pope Gregory the Great later simplified this list in his 590 AD book, Morales on the Book of Job. This refined list essentially created the seven deadly sins we know today. These sins were not normal transgressions with light penalties - they could condemn you to an eternity in hell. Although he defends their potential, Laham admits that if misused, each of these sins has its downsides. He also says that in psychology these are not necessarily considered sinful, morally wrong, or even bad. Laham states: In the psychological sciences, however, the concepts of sin and morality have an entirely different history. Over the years, philosophers and scientists have attempted to naturalize morality, stripping the concept of any divine gloss. Morality is now seen as a set of evolved mechanisms that serve useful evolutionary purposes. Just like traditional “sins”. (p. 9) These “sins,” as we call them, are actually complex “psychological states” that are largely functional in our modern age. Calling them sins only stigmatizes them, breeds contempt, and is an overall simplistic label. Although many people in Western society no longer view the cardinal sins as "mortal," many still live strictly according to these religious doctrines..