The general notion espoused by the worlds’ religions is that all humans are equally endowed with the capacity to resist temptation, to inhibit desire, to put aside urges in favour of a set of values and principles. Our ‘salvation’ is dependant upon this... Those who don’t are labelled as sinful, deviant, executed, beaten, experience social isolation, both under religious paradigms and within our current world view. What neuroscience points to is that our ability to resist or rather inhibit is reliant on an organic mechanism implemented in fronto-striatal network, and is dependent on a sub-class of neurotransmitter systems. This has been demonstrated within rodent, non-human primate as well as human models of inhibitory mechanisms. Pharmacological manipulations and studies with knock-out mice have even pin-pointed receptor subtypes within this network underlying inhibitory control. There is also evidence that suggests that specific electrophysiological and behavioural markers exist in a premorbid state.
The development of this network is constrained by genetic factors and shaped by experience. Just as some people are short, some tall, some dark, some light, our capacities to resist temptation are different. We are not all on par when it comes to dealing with desires as organised religion and many of the modern institutions would have us believe. If this is so then why should a blanket set of moral standard be extended to all humanity both in the form of religion, and the religious hangover we call the post-modernism world? It is simple, the condition of the front-striatal organic network constrains the inhibitory capabilities of an individual. This means that we are all different, not everyone has to same scope to express their inhibition of desire. This suggests that moral choice is dependent on an organic mechanism, there is no gold standard for all humans, there is no form of spiritual strength, a bad ‘moral choice’ is not part of person ‘personality’ and a ‘deficiency’ from earlier life. It’s simply a state of an organic mechanism constrained by genetics and shaped by experience.
Perhaps it is then time to shed false judgements of others? For if a human doesn’t have the capacity to inhibit equal to others then why should we cast judgement down on them, as true choice doesn’t exist in this instance. Can you judge a tree as good or bad for growing or not growing a branch, can you judge a clover as good or bad for only growing two leaves? Of course not… in the same way another human can’t cast judgement on another human for the state of an organic network. It’s not a matter of exercising choice, as the same scope of choice is not equal for all humans.
The reductionistic view of morality has the capacity to drastically change the way we view aberrant behaviour in human society, as well as how we heal and forgive one another. Perhaps we would withhold judgement and cast a gaze of compassion and understanding knowing that there is no such things as sin, no such thing and poor moral reasoning, just behaviour that is a consequence of an organic physical mechanism. Perhaps we could understand this mechanism in greater detail and learn how to train it, optimise it pharmacologically in those who require such optimisation, and thus reduce the suffering and false judgements within human society. Perhaps we could forgive more easily knowing this to be true…
I fully agree that we as humans do not have the capability to determine what is aberrant behavior in other humans, just as we do not have that ability in regards to other species. We may judge what is beneficial for us, either as individuals or corporately, in the short term, but not in any ultimate sense. However, you seem to be implying that our lack of knowledge or ability to view things in an ultimate sense means that there is no ultimate sense.
The reductionist approach works fine, but only on a reduced scale. If we would seek to apply this reductionist approach on a wide basis, then we seek the lowest common denominator for all human behavior, and consign all future humans to an ever lowering standard. I prefer to maintain the acceptance of the notion of Sin, a recognition that there is a higher standard available for human activity, even if I may not achieve it, to have a goal to strive for. I need not condemn others for failing to meet a goal that I have not met, and can act to encourage others to show similar tolerance for failure, just as you can with your reductionist approach. However, my approach gives humanity something to strive for and hope that we might achieve something greater than we currently have, as opposed to submitting to our limits and ceasing to strive to rise above them.
We have known that there are two substances i.e. serotonin and adrenalin related to our emotion. Serotonin made us happy and adrenalin made us angry in term of reductionist perspective. Perhaps Love also has specific chemical reaction and substances.
I seriously think that experimental sciences must -I repeat: must- be absolutely respectful of epistemologic limits. Neurosciences should explain the way the neurological nets work when humans think, decide, stop deciding, and so on. When Gerhold affirms the way "religions" judge human behaviors, is making an unjustified leap from sciences of the bio-electric circuits of the brain to sciences out of that set of values. Brain-Mind problems are not yet solved: to ask if inhibitory mechanisms produced by certain substances are the ((final?)) answer of behavioral problems is not scientifically serious.
The set of terms "temptation", "desires" and "organized religions" does not belong to the same epistemological discipline. I dont go on criticizing this statements, because for what I understand, is understated the negative consideration on religions. Serious scientists with religious conviction absolves me to defend this statement.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science