To BE or NOT TO BE Human

(with respect to religion.)

Copyright 2011

 

            Homo sapiens have evolved a most peculiar characteristic.  We can evaluate ourselves.  Most modern day religions tend to take this characteristic to unbelievable heights.  This essay is about our attempt to not be who we are.  It is also about how, or why, or if, we should try to be something else.

            First of all, most animal species on Earth have developed cognitive apparatuses (i.e. brains) that are programmed to do certain types of activities.  Homo sapiens took that one step further.  Our brains developed a program that can actually assess whether or not all the other programs are good or bad.

            Self evaluation seems to be a constant occupation for some of us.  For example, Michael Shermer asks, "Why do people believe weird things?"

            I ask, "How do people even know that they are believing weird things?"

            We are a most peculiar species in this regard.  My dog Fido does not sit around thinking about whether or not it is OK to eat the little bunny foo foo.  He also does not believe in a human-like being that has no body and judges whether or not humans have sinned for the purpose of sending them to heaven or hell. 

            Second, all of our innate programming, including the program that judges us, has undergone increased selective pressure in the past six million years.  For most of our evolutionary history our behavior has been pretty much dictated by our innate programming.  However, due to this increased selective pressure our ability to think abstractly and to communicate socially increased dramatically.  In fact, it increased to the point that around five to six thousand years ago we developed a written language.  This meant that we now had the ability to communicate ideas with future generations.  There would now begin to be a cumulative fund of human knowledge and an ongoing conversation.  And who do you think we would be talking about the most?  Ourselves, of course and it would not be a polite conversation over tea.  We would be judging ourselves.  Thus, we began to use our newfound cognitive ability to think abstractly in order to be introspective as a species.

            Third, when we took a cold hard look at our nature the evaluation was not good.  You could argue that our nature enabled us to survive and therefore it is good, but then, you could ask, "Why does it bother us so much?"

            Ironically, when we evolved social programming we began to do all sorts of altruistic behaviors towards our in-group.  And, of course, all sorts of anti-social behaviors towards our out-groups.

            When we began to communicate with a recordable language the definition of an "in-group" began to get hazy.  We began to apply this in-group social altruistic programming to all the atrocities we were inflicting on out-groups.  Thus, we began to evaluate our nature as being very bad.  But we could also see our in-group behavior and evaluate it as being very good.  We began to think, "Hmmm ... maybe we need some rules."

            Primitive religions, for example, used to promote behaviors that were more consistent with how we are programmed.  Then, we began to cogitate about religion and lump onto it a bunch of intellectual dogma.  And more and more dogma with each successive generation since we could write it down.  We added some rules to religion to make us behave altruistically towards everyone, not just our own in-group.  That seemed to make sense to those of us that could think outside of our programming.             

            Fourth, let's consider a modern day religion like Catholicism.  If you look at all their rules you can easily see that it is all stuff designed to make us do the opposite of our innate programming.  The Christians figured out all the bad things that humans do automatically and then said, "Don't do any of those things!"

            But it is not just the Christians.

            I would argue that the Humanists do the same thing but without the made up story line.  I don't think that the human "ists" really want us to be human.  Do they?

            If you were really a human "ist" you would want us to act and behave like Hitler.  He was a prototypical human.  He loved and cared for his flock and he hated and destroyed enemy flocks.  He probably reveled in most of the seven deadly sins and he especially sought vengeance.  How human.

            As a result of guys like him, and there have been a few, many of us have come to the conclusion that we are a pretty horrible species.

            Again, we are only horrible to the out-groups.  To the in-group we are the most altruistic species there is.  The real question now is how do you define these groups.  Genetics tells us that all Homo sapiens should be in your in-group.  But what about the dolphins?  I'm certain that the Jets will continue to think of the Dolphins as an out-group.  He ... he ...

            Fifth, we now live in an enlightened age in which we know something about brain science, psychology, and the evolution of our own biology.  So, here is the question:

 

Shouldn't we be able to better figure out what is, or is not, OK with regards to how we are programmed?

 

            In other words, if we are going to talk about religion, or any other weird belief system, then I will tell you that I am only interested in one thing.  I ask, "How far should we go to undo our innate programming."  I mean, the things we are programmed to believe are things we are programmed to believe.  For example, we are programmed to eat meat, have sex, fight wars, detect spies, run in heards, dance, sing, and believe in certain types of supreme beings.  Also, we are not programmed to forgive our enemies.  But we actually have the ability to behave outside our innate programming.  The question is, "Should we?"

            I'm sort of thinking that our innate programming is biological and, therefore, has not changed as rapidly as our culture has changed.  Maybe we should not do some of the things that we feel urges to do?  But which ones and how, exactly?

            Here is an example in regards to rules that apply to sexual activity:  

            Now that the planet is populated and disease and pregnancy can be easily controlled, do we still need the old religious taboos regarding sex?  Also, do we still need the old innate programming regarding sex?  Hmmm....

            How about if we say that all sex is OK as long as no one is getting hurt?

            This would allow our natural hyper-sexual Homo sapiens programming to fully operate so we can be happy and healthy but, at the same time, control the physically and psychologically harmful potential of sexual activity. 

            Am I a genius or what?  Hey, maybe I am a "fucking" genius!  Literally.  He...he...  Try to disagree with me on that one.

            There are multiple things other than sexuality.  What about war, sports, child rearing, medicine, race relations, economics, science, and etc.  You get the idea, right?  

            So, what do you think?

(Let me know at mllevy1@msn.com)

 

-Levystien

Essays