The document discusses human nature from religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. In religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, human nature is seen as divine or connected to the ultimate reality. Islam and Judaism view humanity as distinct from but dependent on God. Philosophically, theories of human nature were traditionally rationalist or empiricist. Evolutionary theory later challenged theological views of a fixed human nature. Currently, there is debate between essentialist views emphasizing genetics and social constructivist views emphasizing culture. Integrating insights requires distinguishing models like using science as the basis for interpretation or a dialectical approach incorporating different perspectives.
The document discusses human nature from religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. In religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, human nature is seen as divine or connected to the ultimate reality. Islam and Judaism view humanity as distinct from but dependent on God. Philosophically, theories of human nature were traditionally rationalist or empiricist. Evolutionary theory later challenged theological views of a fixed human nature. Currently, there is debate between essentialist views emphasizing genetics and social constructivist views emphasizing culture. Integrating insights requires distinguishing models like using science as the basis for interpretation or a dialectical approach incorporating different perspectives.
The document discusses human nature from religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. In religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, human nature is seen as divine or connected to the ultimate reality. Islam and Judaism view humanity as distinct from but dependent on God. Philosophically, theories of human nature were traditionally rationalist or empiricist. Evolutionary theory later challenged theological views of a fixed human nature. Currently, there is debate between essentialist views emphasizing genetics and social constructivist views emphasizing culture. Integrating insights requires distinguishing models like using science as the basis for interpretation or a dialectical approach incorporating different perspectives.
The document discusses human nature from religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. In religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, human nature is seen as divine or connected to the ultimate reality. Islam and Judaism view humanity as distinct from but dependent on God. Philosophically, theories of human nature were traditionally rationalist or empiricist. Evolutionary theory later challenged theological views of a fixed human nature. Currently, there is debate between essentialist views emphasizing genetics and social constructivist views emphasizing culture. Integrating insights requires distinguishing models like using science as the basis for interpretation or a dialectical approach incorporating different perspectives.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
Jan 12, 2011
Human Nature, Religious and Philosophical Aspects
I. Human nature in non-Western world religions The variety of ways to understand human nature is expressed also in different world religions. In Hinduism and Buddhism , human nature is partly understood from the perspective of the self the self is essentially divine. Beyond the empirical human is the human essence, atman, which is identical with the ultimate reality, Brahman. human nature is related to divine nature, Islam and Judaism , the self is generally thought of as distinct from the divine Islam is the religion that most strongly stresses the distinction between God and the world; humanity is seen as dependent upon God and God's will. sin is understood as disobedience (ma'siya) and not as rooted in human nature. in Judaism, God is the creator of human. The aim of humanity is to realize this dependence and live accordinglyi.e., in gratitude toward God. In Islam, all humans are understood as to be born Muslim. It is the cultural environment that changes their essentially Muslim nature in to something else The Bible offers no developed theory about human nature. Genesis 1: 2628 describes human beings as created in the image of God (imago Dei); Whoever is made in the image of God is given the task of representing God as the steward of creation, thereby reminding others of God and taking care of God's creation on God's behalf. Hence, human beings are understood in terms of their relation with God; it is this relation that is thought to make humans unique compared to other species. In Psalm 8, humans are placed between the angels and God, indicating their high rank in the order of creation. Humans are accordingly responsible to God. Simultaneously, they are themselves part of nature; they are made of earth, and without the life-giving breath of God they return to dust. The Bible depicts human life as dependent on the continuous creative activity of God. In Christianity, where Jesus Christ is seen as the true human being, and thus reveals what humans are meant to be.
II. Philosophical patterns for a theory of human nature Two main philosophical trends have had a major influence on understandings of human nature. 1. From the ancient Greek philosopher Plato onwards, the human being alone is able to understand and grasp rationally the world as it is in itself, beyond every change. Thus, human nature is closely linked to the ability to think, and to act with thinking as a guide. Plato articulated the paradigm for a rationalist understanding of human nature. He assumed a dichotomy between body and soul. The soul is the site of reason, and as such it is understood as eternal and (partly and potentially) independent of the body. The body, on the other hand, is mortal and will die. The central struggle in a person's life is to gain control over the physical by means of the rational. As a consequence, Plato sees the flourishing of human nature in its ability to control life with rational means. Philosophically, theories of human nature before the Enlightenment are either rationalist or empiricist in outlook. 2. The empiricist outlook puts more stress on human experience as a condition that shapes actual fulfillment in human life. Human nature is regarded as part of nature, and not something unique.
III. Challenges from evolutionary thinking
the rise of biological insights during the nineteenth century offered by the research of Charles Darwin and others. Obsolete theological theories about the constancy of human nature were now challenged; humans could no longer be seen as a species directly created by God outside of the evolutionary process.
Following the rapid development during the
nineteenth century of more biologically informed views on human nature, the first half of the twentieth century gave rise to other ways of thinking about human nature. Integrating scientific knowledge with theological anthropology Recently, the discussion about human nature has taken a new turn as new developments in biology, especially genetics, contribute to what can be called an essentialist view of human nature. This implies that what a human being is, or is to become, is determined by his or her genetic dispositions. Thus, there is an identification of human nature with the given genetic conditions. This view puts little emphasis on the social impact on the formation of humans. An alternative view, social constructivism,
emphasizes how humans become what they are as a
result of specific cultural conditions communicated within a specific social, social-psychological, and cultural context. Here the actual outcome of biological and other functions is seen as shaped by socially determined conditions. In psychology, this leads to emphasis on how human
relations and culture shape a person's "inner world."
Hence, the way human beings relate to and interpret the world is constituted by them as being relational and social. People are more than "containers" of drives and desires that express themselves in the social and cultural world. Conclusion There is presently no general agreement as to how to relate to and appropriate insights from the natural sciences in the development of philosophical or religious theories of human nature. Such an agreement should not be expected as long as there is no unified opinion about what a human being is. However, it is possible to distinguish three different models for developing the relationship between religious and philosophical theories of human nature and the sciences: 1. The natural sciences can be seen as the basis for interpreting religious or philosophical doctrines about human nature, with philosophy and theology working in continuation of what the sciences offer. 2. A more dialectic or mediating approach tries to incorporate different perspectives on the human being within a coherent theoretical (philosophical or theological) framework. Here, informed by natural sciences, one can formulate theological or philosophical insights without giving them alone the task of determining the overall hermeneutic framework for the development of the theory or doctrine. 3. A non-dialogical approach denies the relevance of natural science for the understanding and development of philosophical and religious theories of human nature. From the point of view of the sciences, this position can be reversed by one who denies the relevance of philosophy or theology for the understanding of humanity, a position that usually implies a very strong empiricism combined with traits of reductionism.