philosophy
religion
Is Human Nature Inherently Good or Bad?
Philosophy, UMass Amherst
Ethics and Public Theology
0
0
Genesis
Response
Penultimate
Finale
May 16th, 2020
Professor Walker says that he’s “unsure of [my] religious commitments.” That’s disappointing; I thought I was notorious. I am, in fact, an atheist. But there is nothing in my piece that any theist needs to disagree with. The position I present assumes only that biology and psychology are valid scientific enterprises, concerned with understanding fundamental principles of life and mentality. If God created the universe, presumably He did it by instituting laws of nature, which material things must obey (with only a few, miraculous exceptions). We possess material bodies, which grow and move and get along in the world in accordance with the regularities that biology seeks to describe and explain. And our minds display properties and patterns that cognitive psychology is uncovering daily. Must a theist deny any of that? (And BTW, the scientific claims that I made are not assumptions – they are conclusions, supported by reason and evidence.)
Prof. Walker wishes I had done several things I didn’t do: “really” define ‘human nature,’ explain morality, provide a criterion of right or wrong, and address the existence of motives. Phew! I only had five hundred words! But on the last point: of course people have motives. Nothing I said implies otherwise. Indeed, a good deal of psychology – and incidentally, my own work in philosophy – is focused on motivation and reasons for action.
Prof. Walker saddles me with positions that I do not hold. I do not think that science tells us everything there is to know about human beings. And I hardly think – why on Earth should I? – that evil “reduces” to “emotive displeasure.” Perhaps Prof. Walker thinks that if I believe that psychology and biology provide insight into human nature, that I’m not entitled to distinguish moral value from mere preferences. But why not? He doesn’t say.
Let me try again to explain my position on nature and nurture. Genes and environment are always equally causally involved in producing the observable properties and behavior of organisms; that’s why it makes no sense to speak of one factor being more responsible than the other. The genotype determines a function from environment to phenotype, but conceptually speaking, you could just as well think of an environment as something that determines a function from genotypes to phenotypes. A genotype does determine potentials, just as the molecular structure of salt determines its potential to dissolve in water. And Prof. Walker is correct that environmental changes won’t change potentials. But they will affect which way those potentials will be manifested. Salt never loses its potential to dissolve in water, but to keep it solid, just keep it dry. Similarly, I speculate, if you want people to manifest goodness, treat them with justice and kindness. I’m baffled why Prof. Walker isn’t down with this program. Isn’t it pretty Christian? Romans 12:17-21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (ESV)
0 Comments
Follow Us
