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.