Science and Human Nature (Volume IX)
INTRODUCTION
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32)
Just because we believe something does not make it true. For example, the ancient Greeks attributed lightning to the god Zeus, which he reportedly threw onto the earth to express his anger. It was Benjamin Franklin who is credited with demonstrating that lightning is a natural phenomenon caused by the discharge of electricity between the earth and the clouds. His recognition that lighting could be described in terms of cause and effect is now universally accepted and has resulted in the development of a whole array of technological devices, which appear to operate according to the laws of physics. The same problem of explanation exists with our conceptions about the nature of mankind. Who or what are we, why do we behave as we do, and what is our place in the universe? Historically, attempts to understand human nature have attributed its creation to abstract personifications of all kinds, and only recently has there been a concerted attempt to apply scientific methods to a full explication of human nature. While for the most part lightning and its effects are accepted as a natural phenomena, fully explainable from a scientific perspective (although many people still attribute their personal encounters with lightning in mythical or non-scientific terms), when it comes to our understanding of human nature, it is even more likely that we will explain ourselves in ways which are inconsistent with a scientific explanation. This volume of the Lynchburg College Symposium Readings explores the historical development of a scientific understanding of human nature and will consider what might even be the future of that human nature, sometimes described as transhumanism.
When we speak of human nature, we are assuming that there exists some actual consistency in the behaviors of people, and that this consistency exists within the personhood of those we are describing. Not all would agree. Some early Greeks were not sure that matter really existed and speculated that we were merely ideas. Aristotle recognized two forms of reality: one was the mind as matter and the other was mind as spirit or soul. His studies in biology convinced him that human behavior could be attributed to our physical bodies, but in order to explain the basis for moral behavior, he felt the need to posit the existence of a soul, which was able to apprehend more abstract concepts of right and wrong behavior. Mythological explanations were long employed to explain events, such as being struck by lightning, for which no other plausible explanation existed. Mankind's seeming unique position in the world was subsequently explained by attributing our existence to supernatural forces, namely to gods or to God. Since gods were experienced but not seen (at least by most of us), it was assumed that we had both physical and non-physical (god-like) attributes, i.e. we had a body and a soul. The exact nature of this body/soul relationship was a major issue of speculation throughout the Middle Ages. For example, it was recognized that our bodies appeared to have power over us (we were driven by our passions), but it was less clear about our ability to choose behavior free from the influence of our bodies.
Pre-scientific thinking attributed many natural events to mythological causes. Natural disasters, physical and mental illness, changes in the weather, etc., were often attributed to acts of God. Persons who questioned the commonly accepted notions about supernatural causes were often ostracized (or worse) depending on the time or place in history. For example, Copernicus's theory about the relationship between the sun and the planets was seen as a direct threat to the ideas of creation held in 16th century Europe. The recognition that events in nature could be explained by reference to cause and effect (a materialistic or deterministic explanation) took a long time to be accepted, and some are still disputed. Descartes' postulation that the body (which could be explained by material causes) was distinct from the soul (which did not operate by the principles of natural laws) helped carve out turf that was not seen as a threat to the accepted views of organized religion. This distinction helped reduce the resistance to natural explanations of many common phenomena. The freedom from mythology provided the impetus for the growth of modern science and the resulting industrial revolution. However, Darwin's ideas of natural selection (evolution) once again challenged the accepted views of supernatural creation, resulting in a debate that has not ended even today. Darwin saw human behavior as similar to that of other animal species and argued that it was the product of natural evolution.
With the dawn of the twentieth century the very idea of human nature was disputed by both scientists and philosophers alike. Behaviorists offered evidence that what appeared to be uniquely human was simply the product of an interaction between biological drives and environmental reinforces. Human behavior was determined not by the person but was instead under the control of the environment. Philosophers, such as Sartre and Marx, doubted that we were anything but what we choose to be or what society demanded of us.
By the middle of the last century, evolutionary theory was well established as the basis of modern biology and for most scientists was accepted as beyond doubt. Taken literally it suggests that human beings are fundamentally no different from all other living things (as originally suggested by Darwin) and, based on more recent evidence in the form of DNA analysis, indicated that we share far more in common with other animal species than previously supposed. We readily accept the idea that the behavior of most animals is a result of their biological makeup but are less certain about the origins of our own behaviors. Evolutionary theory has been extended to include culture, suggesting that a parallel evolutionary process similar to biological evolution can occur with systems or societies at a rate far faster than material evolution. In addition to this cultural evolution, we also may have to recognize technological evolution. From a scientific perspective, it may be possible to demonstrate that much of human behavior can be attributed to our mental facilities, which are ultimately neurological facilities that have evolved to make us better adapted to life on earth. Humans have co-evolved culture and technology which improve their chances of survival. While we assume that consciousness and rationality are uniquely human, some have started to argue that our technology will soon share this ability with us (and will do so within the near future) and will likely evolve more rapidly and more effectively than we are able. Possibly the future will belong to some form of "artificial intelligence" or robots, who will share an evolutionary history with us.
Predicting the future has always been difficult, as we are unable to anticipate that which we have never expected in the first place. We do know that the pace of life for many of us, including technological development, is accelerating. Some have begun to suggest that life as we know it, life based on a carbon based existence, may not be the only form of life that is possible. If this be so, then what can we conclude about human nature? Is our role in the universe so special or unique, and will we have to alter the ways we think about who we are and why we are here?
It would be presumptuous to assume that the writings included in this volume reflect the entire realm of what has been said or could be said about science and human nature. All of the selections are products of western European and American writers, which should not create the impression that these questions are unique to western cultures, as they are not. Our intent was to encourage students to think critically about human nature and about how science is influencing how we understand our own behavior. Like Benjamin Franklin, we need to go beyond believing that which is commonly assumed, without attempting to find that there are better explanations, explanations that are closer to the truth. Our ancestors thought in ways that are, at least in part, foreign to us today and held many beliefs that we have long since rejected. It is likely that future generations will say the same about us. This alone, if nothing more, would suggest that we should be tentative about that which we believe and that we ought to be open to consider new possibilities, especially possibilities supported by evidence.
The readings included in this volume all relate to this development of a scientific view of human nature. While recognizing that the ancients began the exploration of human nature, we will start at the beginning of the scientific revolution, first with Descartes' distinction between the mind and the body. Hobbes, Locke, and Hume subsequently raised questions about whether we actually had a nature at all, or if we did, whether it was inherently good or evil. Darwin changed the debate by suggesting that the answers can be found by observing the natural world, suggesting we had more in common with the natural world and that we shared a common ancestry with the animal kingdom. His theory of evolution and natural selection provided the groundwork of the discussions that have continued for the last two centuries. Darwin's ideas have been extended and elaborated by many people, so we will consider the work of some, such as Jane Goodall and her studies of monkeys and the ideas of E.O. Wilson, who investigated ants. The philosophical speculations of the 17th and 18th centuries, combined with the biological discoveries of the 19th century, lead to psychology and its insights (and speculations) about the human mind. Hence, we will consider the growth of psychology at the start of the 20th century by considering the theories of Freud, Jung, and William James, ending with Sartre and Skinner.
In more recent times, a new understanding of human nature has developed out of the evidence provided by modern biology and its exploration of the mechanisms of evolution, and especially of genetics. Here we will consider the thinking of Dennett, Dawkins, and Pinker, who see human nature as a very real product of human evolution. But just as they recognize us as very real products of a lengthy process of natural evolution, others have come to suggest that we might not be the end product. Now we will speculate about where we may be heading. While further biological evolution, chosen by us rather than for us, may be possible, it may not necessarily be the chosen path. Cognitive science, combined with computing technology, suggests that we might create our progeny and that it might not even be human, at least not in the ways we currently think.
Donald W. Werner, PhD
