Instinct. I has it.

Sorry about that. The silly title is uncalled for. I hope I didn't get anyone's hopes up. To be clear, there will be no funny pictures of cats or bunnies on this blog. Instead, I offer you the usual--thoughts that I hope breed new thoughts. The title of this blog does, however, successfully get us to the point I want to make: I have instinct. I can feel it in my bones.

I know, I know, its an outrageous supposition. Me, a child of God, unique in every way, imbued with personality, can behave predictably in accordance with a set of rules discovered by science through the study of my species and gender. Yes, I am special, just like every other male Homosapien.

There are some who insist that our existence, our essence is entirely natural. These people say that the reasons for our behavior can be explained by burying our heads in science books, not scripture. The proponents of this naturalistic religion are geneticists, sociologists, historians, archeologists, and psychologists, among others. These high minded individuals might be overheard saying that you and I are predictable animals. The gall!

Whether or not the existence of these intellectuals and their ideas offends you depends upon your upbringing. Most of us were educated in public schools so I'll venture to guess we've got at least an elementary understanding of the sciences. I'm sure you're like me; inclined to reflexively respond "duh!" to the assertion that we are largely predictable animals, led about by instinct embedded in our genes. But at the same time I'm sure we share the opinion that there exists in each individual unique and special traits that help set us apart. We are more than preprogrammed robots, we've all chosen to believe.

Still, there are plenty of people out there who take it 10 steps further. They hold onto the belief that who we are, what we do, and how we feel is all God's doing. We are all well developed characters in a play written by the universe's greatest writer, God, or Jehovah. Jehovah is particulary talented at character development. He's had to come up with a unique personality for the 30 billion or so Homosapiens that have lived on this planet over the last few hundred thousand years. He knows us all by name, has a plan for each of us, and loves us all more than we can imagine. This is how great God is, and millions of people don't doubt it for a second.

For a great number-perhaps a great majority-of people whose conceptions of reality were shaped in large part by their religious upbringings, the affects of instinct (or gene-based programming/biases/inclinations) on their own behavior are hardly ever recognized or considered. You see, religion has its own explanations for human feelings and compulsions. For those who want to see truth more clearly, religious explanations muddy the water by introducing perverted and baseless concepts like Satan, the Holy Ghost, Temptation, That Still Quite Voice which speaks the Truth (the Holy Ghost), and so on.

Moreover, some may say (as some have) that those who believe in the vacuous concept of God, as well as all the baggage tied to it, will live their lives significantly insane. When asked the cause of good things, believers will answer "God"; a concept they cannot begin to describe or comprehend, but one they insist exists. The Devil will be blamed for events deemed bad. And a large percentage of believers will subscribe to the twisted notion that God is the cause of good and bad events. If one were to replace "God" with "My invisible friend Jack" or use the term "Boogey Man" instead of "Satan", wouldn't we question the mental faculties of those who spoke of God or Satan as actors in the natural world?

What concerns me more than someone blaming a natural disaster, plane crash, child drowning, sporting championship, or lottery win on the will of God is someone believing that what they feel is either directly or indirectly explained through religious ideas. When I was a youngster, I was led to believe that my sexual desire was, in part, due to temptation from the devil. I was also told that especially good, joyous, peaceful, or inspiring feelings at church were the promptings of the Holy Ghost. For years, I had no problem accepting these ideas. I had no problem accepting that my heart and mind were divine public property; open territory, so to speak, for any spirit-either good or evil-who felt compelled to push me one way or another. But it wasn't long before I began feeling uneasy about the idea. As time went by, I determined that my unease originated from the fact that what I was told was both baseless and erosive to my sense of autonomy.

And so I feel the same way now, just to a greater degree. It is worse than merely lacking a logical foundation or tearing down the fabric of personal autonomy. Religious explanations for personal feelings are unacceptable for the real harm inflicted upon innocent people. They are unacceptable for the guilt, fear, false pride, skewed reality, and general psychosis that infects the minds and "hearts" of believers. Worse still, for those with serious emotional problems, who need real help, religious belief can prevent them from getting the professional treatment they need.

The final offense of religious explanations is that they distract us from discovering the true, natural reasons for our feelings. It is difficult enough planning a progressively happier, more peaceful existence when we lack so much-we will never possess anything close to a perfect knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the universe. Our knowledge may always be fragmented and limited, but this does not mean we should settle for or allow skewed, perverted, or false ideas to take positions of importance in our minds.

What's this got to do with me having instinct?

First understand that I feel compelled to methodically explore every dry creek bed, basin, rocky outcropping, and mountain side in Owyhee County. I want to follow every trail, look behind every tree, search under all the bushes, pick up a few rocks...you get the point. And this really isn't limited to the Owyhee mountains. Give me any area, let me get to know it a little bit, and I'm going to want to explore it.

Why would I feel this way? Does religion offer a reasonable explanation? No it doesn't. What about biology and the theory of evolution? Hmm, let's see... Perhaps my male ancestors needed to familiarize themselves with their territory in order to best protect their families and tribes from invasion. Perhaps ancient humans followed herds over miles of wilderness and needed to have a good sense of the land in order to make the most successful hunts. And perhaps my ancestors were gatherers who benefited from always searching for food and resources over large areas. Those who felt the urge to roam and explore were more likely to secure the safety and resources their families needed to survive. Those who lacked these compulsions were under greater danger of invasion and starvation. Thus, the traits were naturally selected for, generation after generation. They became instinctive.

This is only a theory I know, but its a theory supported by reason and a keen emotional awareness that's unpolluted by belief in the supernatural. To illustrate the point further-I enjoy the thrill of riding my bike and the pure physical effort it takes. These make me feel alive. But there's more involved. I feel compelled to cover ground, to explore. Its an urge, a underlying sense of excitement, a drive towards some possible satisfaction.

If we didn't have the power of our minds, we'd not have a hope of understanding what purpose any urge served, we'd just feel it. We'd just do it, like any other animal. I propose that the challenge that faces us today is in coming to a fuller understanding of all the influences and controls over our minds and bodies so that we may either come to accept them or else consciously manipulate them in productive/positive ways.

And why we evolved a thinking brain as well as cultural norms that keep our instincts in check is a question for another blog.

Thoughts on the Conflict of Being Human

Just some random thoughts:

What does it mean to be human? There's something in the word, the concept, that we tend to value highly.

The French love to see their national cycling stars suffer, get beat, and cry because they think this demonstrates the rider is uber-human or something. The French hated Lance Armstrong because he was the opposite-he rarely if ever showed pain, he rarely got beat, and he never ever cried in public.

Its not just the French who place great value on being emotionally sensitive and expressive. I get the sense that Italians, the Spanish, and numerous other nationalities/races are really into feelings as well. (When I say "feelings", I'm including love and sexual desire)

One could make similar generalizations about the way other cultures tend to value controlled, purposeful use of mind and logic. The Germans, English, Dutch, Swiss... Total generalizations or pure stereotype, of course, but the point is, there exists these completely opposite traits that are both highly valued.

It doesn't make sense. Its either good to be guided by intelligence or its good to be guided by emotions. It can't be both (I'm sure it can, but let's roll with this for now).

We live to feel. If there were no feelings associated with the constant dialogue in our head, if feelings weren't possible, then what would be the purpose of living? For me, living is emotion. But our freedom comes from our ability to think things through, to control our emotions. If we lacked this ability, we'd be nothing more than animals acting impulsively.

So its an equation. Emotions x Thinking = Being Human. With us, they are inseperable components. Which sounds ridiculously obvious.

It doesn't change the underlying logical conflict, however. And the conflict within us. One thing we value the most-emotion. But that thing is what threatens to make us slaves if we don't control it. Emotion is the part of us that is the most programmed; through both genes, hereditry, chance, and the environment. Intelligence-knowledge and self awareness-is what guarantees our freedom; yet without the goal and guidance of emotion, intelligence alone is the stuff of mindless, souless computers. Both emotion and intellect can be explained in ways synomymous with programming, yet together they make us human. Its like two completely different codes in one. Perhaps its emotion x thinking = consciousness.

Purposefully Deceiving Ourselves

The conclusion of my last post touched on this subject of purposefully deceiving oneself. I asked if Carl Sagan, by romanticizing the universe, is somehow deceiving himself about the true nature of things.

I believe that "significance" or "meaning" are 100% man-made creations-without us there would be no purpose or meaning or significance to speak of. I can't tell you what the true nature of something actually is, or how it ought to be thought of (I am of the opinion that in general, impressions or opinions ought to be withheld until a significant number of facts can produce proper understanding), but I can say with confidence that our mental world is largely a manufactured world, and even our sensory perception of things is seen through skewed emotional lenses.

There are at least a couple of ways we feel emotion. One, we can be affected directly, first hand, and automatically by a powerful emotional transmission from one person (art and performance), a group of people (concert, group think situations), or a production of some kind (like television). This is involuntary. Two, we quite naturally, based upon instinct and understood human behavior, react to events in our life (like our emotional responses to breaking up or getting in a fight or having fun--though "transmissions" of emotion can be powerful forces in these instances as well). These emotional responses are involuntary as well. ("involuntary" by no means means "unhealthy" or not necessary)

But there are other ways to feel, and one is to use the powerful symbolic tool of language to manufacture for ourselves a positive perception of something. Carl Sagan saw that the universe was vast, expanding, full of wonder, beyond our comprehension, beyond our experience, containing everything, and so forth. Thus, Sagan built an emotional spiderweb, a larger concept connecting all the emotions he learned to associate with words/symbols like "vast", "infinite", "everything", "wondrous", etc. Was it necessary that he come to this particular emotional conception of the universe? Certainly not. Others who were brought up in different circumstances might just as easily associate the universe with feelings of foreboding and fear such that they adopt any number of strategies to escape the unpleasant notions of vastness, mystery, and their tiny scale in relation to things.

What interests me is the promise of freedom and control represented by willfully defining concepts in a positive light. This is true intelligence. There's many ways we can be intelligent: memorization, wisdom, quick thinking, social tact, mathematical thinking, curiosity, etc. But when we, as individuals, learn to master our own emotions (not just suppression, which is rarely ideal, but enhancement) we will truly develop intellectually. And when we, as a society, abandon old concepts that are mentally and emotionally retarding and adopt new concepts that are liberating and joyful, then we can be proud of the progress we have made.

Carl Sagan chose to view the universe in a way that brought deep feeling and wonder to his heart; and with that choice, proved himself a modern, enlightened fellow.

Now how does this understanding of intelligent, willful conceptualization change our view of religious belief, if at all? Does it justify it or further condemn it?