While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Sam Brownback, evangelical Christian and former
Republican senator from Kansas.[1]
What it means to be human? What makes us different from other animals?
Why is that other animals did not develop superior intelligence as humans? Are humans inherently good or inherently evil? Are we the product of nature or nurture? Are some races “superior” than other races?
Is there a human nature? That is, are there fundamental dispositions and characteristics such as ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that humans have naturally? Most people think so, although not always consciously. Directly or indirectly, what we believe is the “essence of humankind” determines the meaning and purpose of our lives, the way we behave and interact with others, the goals we hope to achieve, and what we want to be or to become in life. As we saw in the Origins section, incompatible views of human origins and nature are at the root of the disagreements between secular and religious ideologies.
So, what does it means to be human? As expected with such a complex issue, there are contrasting and conflicting ways in which people conceptualize human nature. For some it is obvious that there is an innate or deep human nature, while for others there is no such thing, instead thinking of humans as the product of the environment. Some Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that humans were created in the image and likeness of God. “What is man that Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor” wrote the author of Psalm 8 in the Old Testament. Thus, the religious rely on their scriptures to make sense of themselves and their fellow humans (see quote above).
Those who do not believe in a creator have to look elsewhere. Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), for one, thought that man is condemned to be free. He thought that God does not determine human nature, but neither society nor anything else for that matter. In other words, we are not born with a fixed, ready-made, individual nature. Instead, we are supposed to develop our individual nature as we make choices over the course of our lifetime.
The philosopher John Locke, on his part, thought that the mind is a tabula rasa (“blank slate”) at birth. Experience “writes” on this slate, so that all knowledge is founded on and derived from sense impressions. Echoing this thought, the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said that “Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is … history.”
People’s views on human nature have been a reliable predictor of political ideology. For example, the conservative thinker Thomas Sowell groups human nature into two camps: the Tragic Vision and the Utopian Vision. In the Tragic Vision, humans are permanently limited in morality, knowledge and reason. Human beings are tempted by aggression, hence the use of military forces, of citizens resolved to defend themselves, and of the prospect of harsh criminal punishment. Humanity is always in danger of backsliding into barbarism, so we should respect customs in sexuality, religion, and public propriety, even if no one can articulate their rationale, because they are time-tested workarounds for our innate shortcomings.
By contrast, the Utopian Vision emphasizes the malleability of human nature, puts customs under the microscope, articulates rational plans for a better society, and seeks to implement them through public institutions. The Tragic-Utopian grouping of beliefs may not be scientifically rigorous, but it does provide a useful framework to understand certain political perspectives. Usually, modern liberals tend to hold the Utopian Vision and modern conservatives tend to hold the Tragic Vision of human nature.[2] (However, as we shall see in the Cognition section, the left-right divide is no longer a useful way to characterize people’s “visions” in our post-truth society).
Why are there so many different views on something as fundamental as human nature? Our beliefs are greatly influenced by our own personal circumstances and experience. It is common for humans to extrapolate their own personal experience to the whole of humanity. If we repeatedly witness or experience evil acts, we conclude that humans are evil by nature. If we observe altruistic behavior, then we assume humans are innately good. If we observe a situation in which some people behave in an evil way and others in an altruistic way, then we may believe humans are infinitely malleable.
We can find all these contrasting interpretations of human nature throughout history. Consider the Chinese philosophers Mencius (371-289 BC) and Hsun-tzu (298-238 BC). Their views on human nature are dramatically different even though both philosophers share the same Confucian principles. While Mencius believed that humans are innately good and morality is naturally present, Hsun-tzu believed human nature is evil and morality should then be artificially instilled from the outside. This dichotomy between good and evil has been rehashed for centuries and it is still present in people’s views on human nature.
Our own prejudices and biases also get to influence how we see our fellow humans. “The Thaitian is at a primary stage of development of the world, the European is at its old age. The interval separating us is greater than that between the new-born child and the decrepit old man.”[3] This quote is from Denis Diderot, one of the great figures of the French Enlightenment and for many years editor of the Encyclopédie. Diderot eloquently expresses a common thought at the time: savages are simple while Europeans are complex. The implication is also clear: savages belong to an inferior race. Similar stereotypes applied to women, regarded as simple and childlike. They were constitutionally suited for the kitchen, church and children, a belief supported by “research” showing that brainwork was bad for their physical and mental health. The inferiority of other races and of women needed neither justification nor apology. It was “self-evident.”
Clearly then, the idiosyncrasies of one person cannot be human nature, nor can a feature of human behavior that is merely typical of many animals, such as hunger. What then is human nature? According to the accepted modern scientific understanding (see e.g., Wikipedia) human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior believed to be normal and/or invariant over long periods of time and across different cultural contexts. Some consider this range so wide as to become meaningless. Is this claim true?
Comments