unit 02 — part one
One thing is certain: the process of value construction and subsequent exploration into instinct and free will is a complicated one. I neither completely agree nor deny the arguments presented by H. Lewis in the excerpt from A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives. I believe polarization in such circumstances to be needless and ultimately fails to answer the question, how do we choose our values? That said…
Lewis asserts “there is a good deal of evidence that human beings are not primarily driven by genetically determined instincts but are rather free to make their own choices,” (p7) citing sexual drive and self-preservation as primary instincts human beings have been known to reject in the process of value construction – specifically identifying ritual suicides in medieval and modern Japan (p7).
This perspective, however, is limited. It fails to consider a common cultural anthropologic belief that religion evolved as a genetic adaptation. In his book, The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures, Nicholas Wade states that “religion itself is a phenotype which was subject to natural selection,” (Wade, Nicholas. The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures. Penguin Press, HC. 2009.). Furthermore in a critical analysis of his book, author Razib Khan presents an alternative view, “that religion is a byproduct of other traits that have survival value,” (Khan, Razib. “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Has Endured.” Discover: Science for the Curious. Discover Magazine, November 19, 2009. Web. July 24, 2014.).
Considering this, culturally informed ritual suicides would not, in actuality, snub the biological impulse for self-preservation, but would instead make an argument for the complicated web of adaptation human beings have constructed in the pursuit of collective survival.
Human beings are social creatures dependent on one another to assert their dominance over their environment and potential threats therein. Without collective effort we, as a species, would fail to achieve biological success. It stands to reason that there is good evidence for the instinctual need for religion – rendering not of free will, but of self-preservation: instinct.
As stated in my opening paragraph, the concept is expansive and too complicated to be polarized – as is more often than not the case in life. Though it does beg the question, can we ever conclude an answer? Does everything come down to faith? And is that faith merely instinctual? The circle continues…
Hi aartvark,
You seem to be making a connection between ritual suicide and religion in your discussion of instinct and free will. I’m not sure I understand the relationship between these human activities. Can you help me understand the correlation you are trying to draw?
Thanks, Scott
I think I meant to use, and may not have clearly illuminated, “religion” in the most broad sense of the term. Whether Lewis was referring to the ritual suicide of the samurai, either in pursuit of honor retention or form of capital punishment (more broad), or the volunteer drowning of some followers of Shin Buddhism (less broad), the acts carry a certain religiosity to them — in the sense that anything strictly abided by does.
This sort of religiosity, in my mind, is always a way of “making special,” of “meaning production” — adding value to an otherwise bleak and random existence. It stands to reason that this would carry a certain survival value with it and could well be (and is commonly anthropologically believed) a genetic human adaptation towards self-preservation. As a species we’ve developed very cerebrally and with that come a lot of questions, and questions need answers (either “real” or “imagined”).
Lewis used the example of ritual suicide as an argument against instinct-informed value construction, and in favor of free will. I am suggesting the potential for the opposite using those same examples.
I hope that helps to clarify…?
Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
I think you have a good point when you are talking about how religion can be seen as a phenotype that went through natural selection because religion actually seems to give people a reason to live and therefore a greater survival rate. That seems to make a lot of sense to me because I am a science major. But when you bring up ritual suicides, that doesn’t seem to make a connection to religion for some reason to me. I know what you’re getting at and I know you make a good point, but I still think self preservation is a natural instinct and value that everyone share. But as I said in my own post, society seems to tend to supress many of humans natural instincts which is what creates a functional society. Rather than a ritual suicide, there are the cases of heroes who give up their own life for the greater good. These people ignore their self preservation to follow the values they were raised to hold which is making sacrifices for the greater good. I feel like this may be sort of what you’re getting at but I’m not quite sure. I enjoyed reading your post though.
Thanks for the input, Briana! I only now realized how to approve comments and saw this post, but found your thoughts about humans suppressing natural tendencies interesting and possibly related to what I said in my own post.
As I sort of explained in my response to Scott, something like ritual suicide carries value with it — value that places the collective above the individual (and as you put, “creates a functional society.”) Tenets go a long way to maintaining collective order. In the case of ritual suicide it’s often a response to maintaining family honor. When one values the longevity of familial honor over individual pursuit it supports a system of control that enables social groups to flourish: a handful of suicides are nominal compared to social order (read: self-preservation of a species). In that sense, that sort of religious adherence to a code of ethics (or social control) is about preservation. Again, I am using “religion” in the broadest definition of the term — even if the sources I cited do not. I think that maybe created some confusion and can see that after re-reading my post.
I hope between the two responses I am making a bit more sense.
I find your post really interesting. Refering to Lewis’s statement that “self-preservation and sex cannot be instincts in the same sense of the word that we apply to animals” (8), it seems to me as if you are arguing that religion could have evolved as a social adaptation to foster human survival through community and common values. I’m curious about your perspective of how sexuality and the sexual repression that exists in many religions correspond to the instinct vs. social construction debate. Personally, I tend to view religion as a social construct, though I understand the reasoning for how it could have developed as a psychological adaptation. Lewis also discusses how the power of the dominant authority can help to influence a culture’s values (10). Do you agree with the perspective that once religion was established in a culture, the values set forth by the religion would reinforce the continuation of its practice (granted that people believed in its authority)?
I am not religious, but I do consider myself to be spiritual. You say in your fifth paragraph how there could be an “instinctual” need for self-preservation. Are you discussing religion as an awareness or belief in a form of spirituality, or as organized religious practice? I would understand an instinctual need to attempt to explain the phenomena around us through some sort of religious/spiritual explanation—is this what you are referring to or something else?