Engcmp 0200
Human Nature as an Adjunct to Religion
Darwin would define human nature, at its most subtle level, is an innate and primordial instinct to survive and proliferate as a species. Darwin’s application of animalistic instincts driving human nature is most evident when Silver attributes the survival of our species to our capability for abstract thought processes and our “high level of consciousness… [that] provided our ancestors with the ability to outcompete or kill off cousins that were not equally endowed” (93). Our very early ancestors, however, did not base their judgments or decisions on religious or statutory guidelines; their nature was elucidated based on the availability of food, water, and shelter in harsh environments. In modern society, however, where the conflict between science and religion provide abstract and contrasting scopes into the realm of human behavior, I believe that moral guidelines, based on fundamentally (albeit loosely defined) religious principles, define our perspective on human nature.
It’s important to note that human behavior is arbitrarily based on observational human behavior, however, regardless of political or religious beliefs, it’s irrefutable that an innate moral code guides our thought processes and decision-making today. For example, in this situational crisis, three people, one atheist, one agnostic, and one Christian fundamentalist are presented with the same moral dilemma: to murder another human being knowing that there would be no legal repercussion. Obviously, the Christian fundamentalist considers murder as wrong by every means based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. But what about the other two people in this quandary? They’re cognizant of the fact that they can escape this crime with only a guilty conscience; they’re not obligated to abide by the set of religious imperatives condemning murder, what do they do? In this situation, both the atheist and the agnostic choose not to kill. Why? Because, as Francis Fukuyama describes, “there is a human defining attribute, Factor X,” that tells us what it is to be human in the most basic sense (96). Silver uses Fukuyama’s words to reinforce his argument against the Vatican’s ambiguous definition of evolutionary theory. However, I think that in Fukuyama’s words are applicable to more than biology. His description of Factor X, interpreted by Silver to literally mean the human soul, is actually just an innate form of moral judgment, based on fundamentally religious principles (such as not to murder), that exists in the unconscious of every human being. These moral principles, I believe, are intuitive characteristics of all people and are a foundation for human nature.
Another poignant example of how morality defines human nature is a case of conjoined twins Silver presents in his book that he uses to illustrate the arbitrary and ambiguous line drawn between committing murder and not committing murder. In 2000, a woman gave birth to conjoined twins – Rose and Gracie – who were born without adequate means to support both of their lives for a sustained period of time. Gracie was awake, alert, and oriented whereas Rosie was lethargic. The physicians and parents had to make a decision: “kill” Rosie to ensure Gracie, the daughter exhibiting higher brain function, could live a fruitful life, or sentence both to a short life span by doing nothing? The parents, with good intentions guided by religious morals, wanted to sustain both lives and “let nature take its course” (161). The physicians, whose actions were guided by similarly good intentions, wanted to surgically remove Rosie to ensure Gracie could live a healthy life. In this instance, a high court resolution ruled in favor of surgical removal of Rosie. Albeit in this situation, morality favored the “murder” of Rosie, the natures of the parents, the physicians, and the judges decisions had religious foundations. The parents protested in favor of religious purpose, they were “quite happy for God’s will to decide what happens” (161). The physicians and high courts decision had a more tenuous connection to religious morality. They wanted to save the life of one daughter in exchange for the partial existence of the other. This is reflected in Islam where a principle of priority to save lives exists. Evidently, all parties involved in this case of morality based their judgments on fundamentally religious principles.
It’s clear that in every case of human pondering and decision-making has an ethereal tie to religious principle. Human nature isn’t defined by biology, by definitive scientific explanation; rather human nature is built on a foundation of theological moral framework. In modern society, where a lot of behavior is dictated by polite social procedure, there is a fundamentally unconscious conscience that influences human nature.
3 comments:
Okay so no one commented on my paper, so I read some of the other comments and provided counterarguments to strengthen my paper. In addition, I tried to strengthen all the provocative, although ambiguous statements I made.
Cheers...
Darwin would define human nature, at its most subtle level, as an innate and primordial instinct to survive and proliferate as a species. His application of animalistic instincts driving human nature is most evident when Silver attributes the survival of our species to our capability for abstract thought processes and our “high level of consciousness… [that] provided our ancestors with the ability to outcompete or kill off cousins that were not equally endowed” (93). Our very early ancestors, however, did not base their judgments or decisions on religious or statutory guidelines; their nature was elucidated based on the availability of food, water, and shelter in harsh environments. In modern society, where the conflict between science and religion provide abstract and contrasting scopes into the realm of human behavior, I believe that moral guidelines, based on fundamentally (albeit loosely defined) religious principles, define our perspective on human nature.
It’s important to note that “human nature” is arbitrarily defined based on observational human behavior. What this means is that because of personal political and religious sentiment, there will never be mutual criteria to compound the intricacies of our nature.
Regardless of political or religious beliefs, however, it’s irrefutable that an innate moral code guides our thought processes and decision-making today. For example, in this situational crisis, three people, one atheist, one agnostic, and one Christian fundamentalist are presented with the same moral dilemma: to murder another human being knowing that there would be no legal repercussion. Obviously, the Christian fundamentalist considers murder as wrong by every means based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. But what about the other two people in this quandary? They’re cognizant of the fact that they can escape this crime with only a guilty conscience; they’re not obligated to abide by the set of religious imperatives condemning murder, what do they do? In this situation, both the atheist and the agnostic choose not to kill. Why? Because, as Francis Fukuyama describes, “there is a human defining attribute, Factor X,” that tells us what it is to be human in the most basic sense (96). Silver uses Fukuyama’s words to reinforce his argument against the Vatican’s ambiguous definition of evolutionary theory. However, I think that Fukuyama’s words are applicable to more than biology. His description of Factor X, interpreted by Silver to literally mean the human soul, is actually just an innate form of moral judgment based on fundamentally religious principles (such as not to murder) that exists in the unconscious of every human being. I believe there moral principles are intuitive characteristics of all people and are a fundamental to our essence.
Others would argue the fact that people do murder, that their sinful actions are not based on religious principle. This is a poignant fact, but take Satanism as an example. Satanism is recognized as a legitimate belief system, and people who practice this religion worship Satan, the “fallen angel” who acts as a temptress for sinful deeds. David Berkowitz, more prominently recognized as The Son of Sam, was a practicing member of a satanic cult in addition to being one of the most famous serial killers in history. David Berkowitz claimed possessive demons told him to kill. Him, and other practicing members of this religion wouldn’t consider murder as an unjust or immoral act. Rather, Fukuyama would consider their nature and actions to still be dictated by “factor X,” despite them having a completely inverse set of religious principles compared to members of other religions, such as Christianity. David Berkowitz chose to murder because demons told him to. His actions weren’t the result of sadism rather his nature, and the nature of other Satanists, are sanctioned by a set of religious codes as prescribed by their belief system.
Another poignant example of how morality defines human nature is a case of conjoined twins Silver presents in his book that he uses to illustrate the arbitrary and ambiguous line drawn between committing, and not committing murder. In 2000, a woman gave birth to conjoined twins – Rosie and Gracie – who were born without adequate means to support both of their lives for a sustained period of time. Gracie was awake, alert, and oriented whereas Rosie was lethargic. The physicians and parents had to make a decision: “kill” Rosie to ensure Gracie, the daughter exhibiting higher brain function, could live a fruitful life, or sentence both to a short life span by doing nothing? The parents, with good intentions guided by religious morals, wanted to sustain both lives and “let nature take its course” (161). The physicians, whose actions were guided by similarly good intentions, wanted to surgically remove Rosie to ensure Gracie could live a healthy life. In this instance, a high court resolution ruled in favor of surgical removal of Rosie. Albeit in this situation, morality favored the “murder” of Rosie, the natures of the parents, the physicians, and the judges’ decisions had religious foundations. The parents protested in favor of religious purpose, they were “quite happy for God’s will to decide what happens” (161). The physicians and high courts decision had a more tenuous connection to religious morality. They wanted to save the life of one daughter in exchange for the partial existence of the other. This is reflected in Islam where a principle of priority to save lives exists. Evidently, all parties involved in this case of morality based their judgments on fundamentally religious principles.
It’s clear that in every case of human pondering and decision-making has an ethereal tie to religious principle. Human nature isn’t defined by biology, by definitive scientific explanation; rather human nature is built on a foundation of theological moral framework. In modern society, where a lot of behavior is dictated by polite social procedure, there is a subtle unconscious conscience that influences human nature.
Albert - If nobody comments in the future, email me a couple days in advance and I'll do it.
On to the details...
Your first paragraph is interesting, but also vague. You make claims about Darwin, but seem to be talking initially more about life in general than human nature in particular - and you make claims about Darwin without citations... Your closing thought in this paragraph is awfully broad. I hope you narrow it...
Your second paragraph seems to be undercutting the possibility of doing the prompt. While you might be technically right, I don't see the benefit of this kind of self-defeating admission, at least in a short paper.
One of the problems with Fukuyama's factor X is that he keeps it entirely vague. Your scenario doesn't help with that vagueness. People kill each other all the time, especially when people of different cultural backgrounds come together. Sometimes they call it murder, and sometimes they don't. Then there are sociopaths, schizophrenics, etc - you are asserting a universal human nature (even though you've just said there is no such thing) without defining it through anything but a vague fictional scenario.
I think your paragraph on Berkowitz undermines what you said before. Maybe. In one paragraph, you seem to assert a universal human nature; in the second, that each nature is distinctive. But is Berkowitz's "nature" biological or cultural? Which one do you care about, and why?
In your last paragraph, I think I understand what you're up to. I also think you've contradicted yourself thoroughly. Take this crucial line: "Human nature isn’t defined by biology, by definitive scientific explanation; rather human nature is built on a foundation of theological moral framework."
Here you are operating under the unjustified assumption that the actions of all the people you discuss are, in fact, dictated by theology. You ignore the possibility of mental illness in the case of Berkowitz (or the mother of the conjoined twins!); you also ignore even the possibility that the courts may *actually* have been concerned with science and secular law.
If this was going to work, I think you needed to explore one example in much greater depth - doing some research on, say, Berkowitz, and actually *arguing* that in the case of everyone involved, their actions were determined by theology (instead of, say, mental illness), would have worked. Short version: one detailed example instead of several totally unconvincing ones.
Post a Comment