Category: Human nature

I have often suggested that it’s useful to study religions (their scholars) because they cover spirituality better than we secular thinkers do.

A great case in point is this article titled “Why Is Shirk the Greatest Sin of All?” located here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/why-is-shirk-the-greatest-sin-of-all.

“Humanity’s enduring fascination with the same set of existential questions—life after death, the human soul, morality, ethics and the nature of God—has compelled some anthropologists to describe us as Homo Religiosus, distinct as a species based not on ‘sapience’ (wisdom, intelligence) but on shared religious activity. Even in modern times with the decline of traditional religion, human beings cannot escape these so-called religious questions.

… The modern world has not departed from religion, but has simply replaced traditional ones with others.

Such religious fixations are the primary concerns of humanity, as they should be. How an individual, community, or civilization chooses to answer these questions determines their very spirit and essence. The answers inform the very purpose of our existence, who we are accountable to, and what we are accountable for.”

The author uses the word religious but I prefer spiritual.

Humans are spiritual for 3 reasons;

1. We are incredibly intelligent, including looking for cause and effect in everything.
2. We are self aware, we are conscious of our existence.
3. We see and are aware of our own impending death early on in our lives.

Spirituality is about finding ways to cope with our terminal existence.

Societies have historically offered extra terrestrial (religious) answers to these questions. Later societies are gravitating towards human based (secular) answers.

But religions are deeply embedded in human history and they are the default thinking for most people. So it’s typical to talk about religiosity rather than spirituality

The author identifies that the way we answers these questions makes us who we are.

“Imagine the consequences of starting with false beliefs [e.g. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.] on these fundamental issues? Such falsehood at the root will only multiply into branches that ultimately lead to ruin and destruction.”

He (correctly) suggests that if one’s basic assumptions are false, that will undermine the validity of their conclusions.

I found an article on a Christian website that discusses the significance of our fundamental assumptions but in different words:

“Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.” https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/creation-myths/creation-wheres-the-proof/

Both of these authors acknowledge the influence that our fundamental assumptions have on our conclusions. For example, religious assumptions lead to religious conclusions. Secular assumptions lead to secular conclusions.

And what is the source of our fundamental assumptions? It’s our early childhood environment. Or in the case of a religious family, early childhood indoctrination before the child has reached the age of reason. This way they are incapable of intellectually challenging or questioning the assumptions and instead digest them as facts.

And to further reinforce those assumptions (fictions), a feature of both Christianity and Islam is that young children are taught/indoctrinated not to, and/or that they are incapable of thinking for themselves and must defer to God/Allah as the only source of authority.

“… theologians have also debated whether an individual can independently come to the Truth without guidance in the form of revelation from the Ultimate Source of Truth, Allah. Such a debate is merely theoretical as the Qur’an is clear that regardless of whether one is capable of reaching the Truth or not, out of His Mercy, the responsibility to believe in the Truth only comes if a messenger is sent to convey that Truth.”

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;”Proverbs 3:5

Then it suggests why religions have been so successful through the years:

“They may practice an idolatrous religion or culture [e.g. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism. etc.] because they enjoy being part of a community, the comfort of social cohesion, and the desire to conform. Perhaps they have simply inherited it without giving due consideration of their mind or heart. So their example is like the Qur’an describes, a mere “statement that emerges from their mouth.” However, when the ugly truth of idolatry becomes clear to them, they must make a decision to depart from these practices, or close their eyes and continue despite recognizing the great wrong and betrayal that idolatry represents…”

“These idols [e.g. Muhammad, Jesus Christ], although people themselves, are carved by their ‘worshiper’s’ desires and whims. They would never be idols unless people recognized them, and they would never be recognized unless they conformed (or are carved) to what the people desire…”

Religions have been proven to be very effective coping mechanisms. And whether they are ultimately true or not doesn’t affect their value to their believers.

This author has clear insight into the faults of other religions but lacks insight into his own beliefs. But that is to be expected from a religious advocate.

As long as we can identify the bias and false beliefs in his thinking, this article offers some great insights into human nature and I encourage you to read.

The source of hate is generally one’s family and/or the society at hand. But now a popular source of hate is the internet. People can learn hate by surfing and finding something that resonates with them. Something that fits their personality and their situation.

Either way, hate is a learned phenomenon. Then it needs a supportive environment in order to mature and advance into violence.

But ultimately, hate needs a receptive mind. And it’s the parents who have the most influence over their child’s development. Hate will not develop where there is no room for it.

But it will develop nicely if the seeds have been planted in a child’s young and developing mind. Hate usually begins at home, founded on the attitudes and values of the parents.

It is important to discuss and define the concept of human nature. Human nature it is central to secular thinking because secular thinking relies on the authority of mankind rather than the authority of a god or gods.

Human nature can be defined as traits that are common to most human beings. Human nature has been relatively constant for thousands of generations, ever since mankind finished evolving into a conscious creature. Human nature is founded on the physical and mental nature of mankind and the fact that we are more similar than we are different. It is these common features which make us think and feel similarly in similar situations across the species and across the relatively recent history of humanity.

Other animals share similar traits which identify the nature of a particular type of animal. Cats share a set of common traits that we can call cat nature, or the nature of cats. Similarly with dogs, snakes, chimpanzees, etc.

But what makes human nature notably different is that mankind is conscious and self aware. It is this self awareness that gives human nature a much larger range than animal nature.

Human beings of all races and throughout recent human history have much in common. We are more similar than we are different. For this reason we can and do generalize about people and call it human nature.