Edit: /j

  • dx1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Anyone ever commenting “human nature” should be forced to explain how: (a) some behavior is an inevitable result of brain physiology, and, (b) why examples of people who don’t exhibit that behavior exist. The absence of those explanations disprove like 95%+ of “human nature” arguments. Like, “oh, religion is human nature, we must believe in a higher power because we crave meaning” - which part of the brain mandates that thought, and why do atheists and agnostics exist then?

    • orc_princess@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Tbf religion scholars believe we do tend towards religious behavior, which isn’t to say humans must be religious or believe in the supernatural, but patriotism is analogous to civil religion, and fandoms can also be very similar to religious communities.

      I believe skeptics have always existed, even Cicero included skeptics when writing about Roman religion before the Common Era, but we engage in behaviors that are analogous to religious behavior regardless of our beliefs, so from that point of view our nature includes worship, imo.

      • dx1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Well, notice how you’re using the word “tend”. Religious ideas only come from attempts to derive explanations for what we experience. The latter is the basically intrinsic part of human nature, the former isn’t. I’m talking about what is an absolute, unchangeable part of human nature, versus what’s variable and just “something that humans do sometimes”.